M.K. v. Superior Court CA5

California Court of Appeal Feb 19, 2026 No. F090734Unpublished

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that the juvenile court properly terminated the petitioner's guardianship and assigned educational rights to the minor's caregiver, finding that the petitioner received adequate notice and due process during the proceedings.

Issues

Whether the petitioner was denied due process due to lack of notice regarding the termination of her guardianship and the assignment of educational rights.
Whether the juvenile court's termination of the guardianship was supported by the record and the best interests of the child.

Disposition. denied

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“The record reveals that the guardianship was terminated and educational rights were limited at the November 4, 2025 hearing at which guardian was present and participated”

“Guardian received actual notice of the hearing evidenced by her personal presence.”

“The agency’s report was statutorily sufficient notice of its recommendation to terminate the guardianship”

Filed 2/19/26 M.K. v. Superior Court CA5

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

M.K.,

Petitioner, F090734

v. (Super. Ct. No. 24JP-00090-A)

THE SUPERIOR COURT OF MERCED COUNTY, OPINION

Respondent;

MERCED COUNTY HUMAN SERVICES AGENCY,

Real Party in Interest.

THE COURT* ORIGINAL PROCEEDINGS; petition for extraordinary writ. Mark V. Bacciarini, Judge. M.K., in pro. per., for Petitioner. No appearance for Respondent. Forrest W. Hansen, County Counsel, and Ann Hanson, Deputy County Counsel, for Real Party in Interest. -ooOoo-

* Before Levy, Acting P. J., Peña, J. and DeSantos, J.

Petitioner M.K. (guardian), in propria persona, seeks an extraordinary writ (Cal. Rules of Court,1 rule 8.452) from the juvenile court’s orders made at a combined six- and 12-month reunification review hearing held pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code2 section 366.22, subdivisions (e) and (f), terminating her reunification services and guardianship and setting a section 366. 26 hearing for minor, A.K. Guardian contends she was not provided proper notice that her guardianship would be terminated and that educational rights would be assigned to A.K.’s care provider in violation of her due process rights.3 We deny the petition and lift the stay on the section 366.26 hearing, filed by this court on January 27, 2026. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND At the time the underlying juvenile dependency proceedings were initiated, A.K. was four years old and resided with guardian, who is also her maternal grandmother, under a legal guardianship established by the probate court. In August 2024, real party in interest, Merced County Human Services Agency (agency), filed a juvenile dependency petition on behalf of A.K. alleging she came within the juvenile court’s jurisdiction under section 300, subdivisions (a) (nonaccidental infliction of serious physical harm), (b)(1) (failure to protect), (c) (serious emotional damage), and (g) (no provision for support). The petition alleged several supporting facts

M.K. v. Superior Court CA5

AI Brief

THE SUPERIOR COURT OF MERCED COUNTY, OPINION

MERCED COUNTY HUMAN SERVICES AGENCY,

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief