DecisionDepot
California legal research
All cases
26PG-0033500·shasta·Probate·Appointment of Guardian
Hearing todayGRANTED.

Guardianship of Emilianna Perez & Catalina Schmidt

Petition for Appointment of Guardian of the Person

Hearing date
Aug 31, 2026
Department
42
Judge
Prevailing
Moving Party
Appearance
Not required

Motion type

Browse all Petition rulings statewide →

Parties

OtherEmilianna Perez
OtherCatalina Schmidt
PetitionerJaime Schmidt
PetitionerStephanie Young

Ruling

CASE NUMBER: 26PG-0033500 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 grandfather and his girlfriend, Jaime Schmidt and Stephanie Young. Letters of Temporary Guardianship were not requested.

The mother has been personally served. The father, paternal grandfather/Petitioner, and paternal grandmother have consented to the guardianship and waived notice. There is proper proof of service on the maternal grandmother. The Court dispenses with notice to the maternal grandfather. The matter has been properly noticed. No objections have been raised. The paperwork appears to be in order. The Petition indicates the minor is not an Indian child. If Petitioners have reason to

know that the child is an Indian child, they must make further inquiry to learn about the child’s Indian heritage.

The Court has reviewed and considered the Court Investigator’s report filed on August 17, 2026, and the Children’s Services report filed on August 25, 2026, and agrees with the recommendations to grant the Petition. The Court FINDS it would be detrimental for the child to be with either parent or any parent objecting to the guardianship, the guardianship is in the child’s best interest, and the guardianship is necessary and convenient. The proposed guardians are suitable.

The Court GRANTS the Petition. Visitation shall be at the Guardians’ discretion. A proposed Order Appointing Guardian has been lodged and will be executed by the Court. Annual Review is set for Monday, August 30, 2027, at 8:30 a.m. in Department 42. A completed Confidential Guardianship Status Report (GC-251) must be submitted one (1) month prior to the hearing on the Annual Review pursuant to Probate Code § 1513.2. The Court reminds the Guardians they are responsible for maintaining a current address on file with the Court at all times. No appearance is necessary on today’s calendar.

GUARDIANSHIP OF OPALFIRE PRATHER

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