Guardianship of Peyton Martinez
Petition for Appointment of Guardian of the Person
Motion type
Parties
Ruling
CASE NUMBER: 26PG-0033504 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 hearing on a Petition for Appointment of Guardian of the Person. The Petition was filed by the minor’s father and family friends, Joe Martinez Jr., Lacey Carter, and Melodi Carter, and requests that Lacey Carter and Melodi Carter be appointed as guardians. Letters of Temporary Guardianship were not requested.
The Court dispenses with notice to the deceased paternal grandmother. There is no proof of service of the Notice of Hearing and Petition for the minor, mother, maternal grandparents, paternal grandfather, or siblings. Insufficient information has been provided to permit the Court to dispense with notice to these parties. The parents must be personally served in order to move forward on the Petition. Prob. Code § 1511(b). All other parties may be served by mail. Prob. Code § 1511(c). Alternatively, the above parties can sign a consent and waiver of notice (GC- 211, section 4), in lieu of being served.
Children’s Services has requested additional time to complete the investigation and report. The Court has reviewed the declaration filed by father on August 19, 2026, indicating that Lacey Carter and Melodi Carter no longer wish to proceed with the Petition and requests to dismiss the proceedings. Nothing has been filed by Lacey and Melodi Carter acknowledging their intent to withdraw. Petitioners must file a request for dismissal if they wish to withdraw their Petition.
This matter is continued to Monday, October 12, 2026, at 8:30 a.m. in Department 42 for further proceedings on the Petition. Petitioners are 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 if they wish to proceed with their Petition. In the alternative, if Petitioners cannot serve the parties identified, the Court will require a declaration explaining in detail all efforts of Petitioners to locate and serve them and why they cannot be served, to permit the Court to dispense with notice. Warning: Failure to properly effect service or provide adequate basis to dispense with service as to the necessary parties will result in denial of the Petition. Notice is preserved. No appearance is necessary on today’s calendar.
GUARDIANSHIP OF MICHAEL MCMULLEN JR.
Cited authorities
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?”