DecisionDepot
California legal research
All cases
CVPG18-0029493·shasta·Probate·Probate
Hearing 3 months agoCONTINUED

GUARDIANSHIP OF JOBE PHENGMANY

Petition to Remove Co-Guardian

Hearing date
May 18, 2026
Department
42
Judge
Prevailing
N/A
Next hearing
Jun 29, 2026
Appearance
Not required

Motion type

Browse all Petition rulings statewide →

Parties

DefendantMichael Joiner

Ruling

CASE NUMBER: CVPG18-0029493 Disclosure Re: guardianship cases involving Shasta County Health and Human Services Agency-Judge Wood discloses that her step-daughter, Erinn Watts, is the Administrative Branch Director of the Health and Human Services Agency. In that position, Judge Wood’s step-daughter does not have any involvement in the investigation, management, prosecution or defense of guardianship cases. However, the Court makes this disclosure of an employment relationship between an investigating agency and the Court’s first degree relative as required by California Code of Judicial Ethics.

This matter is on calendar for further proceedings on a Petition to Remove Co-Guardian, Michael Joiner. The Court notes Mr. Joiner has been suspended as Co-Guardian pending further order of the Court. Proof of service has been filed for the siblings Saprina and Kristina. The Court will dispense with notice to the mother, father, maternal grandmother. There is no proof of service of the Notice of Hearing and Petition for the minor or sibling Jordan. Insufficient information has been provided to permit the Court to dispense with notice to these parties. All parties may be served by mail.

The Court has reviewed the Court Investigator’s Report filed on April 14, 2026, which recommends granting the Petition. The matter is continued to Monday, June 29, 2026, at 8:30 a.m. in Department 42 for further proceedings regarding the Petition to Remove Co-Guardian. Petitioner is required to file and serve a new Notice of Hearing for the continued hearing date, along with a copy of the Petition, on the parties identified above. In the alternative, if Petitioner cannot serve the parties identified, the Court will require a declaration explaining in detail all efforts of Petitioner to locate and serve them and why they cannot be served, to permit the Court to dispense with notice. Notice is preserved. No appearance is necessary on today’s calendar.

GUARDIANSHIP OF RAYMOND & NALANI POM

Cited authorities

Extracting citations from the ruling text…
Verify against the source PDF — LLM extraction may miss or mis-normalize citations.

Looking for case law or statutes not cited here? Search published authorities

Ask about this ruling

Examples: “Why did the court rule this way?” · “What were the procedural grounds?” · “Is appearance required?”

Answers reference only this ruling's text. Not legal advice — always verify against the source PDF.

Find similar rulings

Source

Share