In re S.G. CA2/6

Filed 2/17/26 In re S.G. CA2/6 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION SIX

In re S.G., a Person Coming 2d Juv. No. B348151 Under the Juvenile Court (Super. Ct. No. 22JV00327) Law. (Santa Barbara County)

SANTA BARBARA COUNTY CHILD PROTECTIVE SERVICES,

Petitioner and Respondent,

v.

D.G.,

Objector and Appellant.

D.G. (Mother), the biological mother of 12-year-old S.G., appeals the June 5, 2025 order of the juvenile court finalizing the long term guardianship of S.G. and ordering that D.G. would have visitation with S.G. at the discretion of the legal

guardian. (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 366.26.)1 D.G. contends the order improperly delegates authority over visitation to the legal guardian. Respondent concedes the matter should be remanded to the juvenile court because the written order is inconsistent with the court’s oral pronouncement at the section 366.26 hearing and, as written, improperly delegates authority to the legal guardian. (In re T.H. (2010) 190 Cal.App.4th 1119, 1124.) We agree that the June 5, 2025 order impermissibly delegates full discretion over visitation to the legal guardian. It also appears that the juvenile court has not yet determined whether it has jurisdiction over S.G. under the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act, as we directed in the prior appeal in this matter. (Fam. Code, § 3400 et seq., (UCCJEA); In re Z.G. and S.G. (Nov. 25, 2025, B345003) [nonpub. opn.].) For those reasons, we conditionally reverse the June 5, 2025 order and remand the matter to permit the juvenile court to determine whether it has jurisdiction under the UCCJEA as directed by our November 25, 2025 opinion. If on remand the juvenile court determines that it has jurisdiction, it shall correct the June 5, 2025 order to conform with the Department’s recommendation and with the court’s oral pronouncement at the June 5, 2025 hearing. If the juvenile court determines that it lacks jurisdiction over S.G., it shall nullify the June 5, 2025 order and proceed as required by the UCCJEA. Facts and Procedural History In an unpublished opinion, we conditionally reversed the juvenile court’s order terminating family reunification services with respect to S.G., to permit the court to comply with