DecisionDepot
California legal research
All cases
23PR00392·sonoma·Probate·Probate
Hearing in about 1 hourGRANTED

Guardianship of Leo David Chase Dillwood

Request to be relieved as Minor’s Counsel

Hearing date
Sep 1, 2026
Department
61
Judge
Prevailing
Moving Party
Next hearing
Oct 20, 2026
Appearance
Not required

Motion type

Browse all Other rulings statewide →

Ruling

Guardianship Calendar Tentative Rulings Tuesday, September 1, 2026

1. Guardianship of Leo David Chase Dillwood 23PR00392 Review

TENTATIVE RULING: APPEARANCES ARE NOT REQUIRED. Ms. Levy’s request to be relieved as Minor’s Counsel is granted, and the court will appoint successor Minor’s Counsel. All prior orders remain in full force and effect. Ms. Levy is to prepare and submit a proposed order consistent with the Court’s tentative ruling. The case is CONTINUED to October 20, 2026, at 9:30 a.m. in Department 61 for successor Minor’s Counsel’s acceptance of the appointment and any other necessary further proceedings.

2. Guardianship of Alexander John O’Neill 24PR00859 Account and Report

TENTATIVE RULING: APPEARANCES ARE NOT REQUIRED. The Court has received and approves the First Account Current and Report of the Guardian for the period ending May 31, 2026. The Guardian is ordered to file the next Account no later than May 31, 2028. All other prior orders remain in full force and effect.

3. Guardianship of Matthew Dallas Ryan 24PR00983 Child Custody/Visitation

TENTATIVE RULING: APPEARANCES ARE NOT REQUIRED. The Court is in receipt of the Petition for Visitation filed by Mother as well as Mother’s Declaration in support of the petition, the Guardian’s Declaration in Opposition to the Petition for Visitation, and Minor’s Counsel’s Response to the petition. The case is CONTINUED to October 20, 2026, at 9:30 a.m. to permit Minor’s Counsel to complete her investigation and submit a report and recommendation to the Court; said report and recommendation to be filed no later than September 30, 2026.

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