Guardianship of Daniels

DRAPER, J.

Both sets of grandparents of this infant orphan sought appointment as guardians of her person and estate. The trial court ordered appointment of the paternal grandparents, and the maternal grandparents appeal. They assert error in the failure of the trial court to make findings of fact.

In guardianship proceedings, “practice and procedure and the making and entry of orders” is governed by division 3 of the Probate Code (Prob. Code, § 1606). In proceedings under division 3 the court, in a matter tried without jury, must “sign and file its decision in writing, as provided in civil actions” (Prob. Code, § 1230). There is no question that the failure to make findings of fact in contested proceedings under division 3 is prejudicially erroneous, just as it is in civil actions.

(Estate of Pendell,

216 Cal. 384 [14 P.2d 506].) Similarly, findings are required, under section 1606, in guardianship proceedings.

(In re Bensfeld,

102 Cal.App. 445, 448 [283 P. 112]; 24 Cal.Jur.2d 392, Guardian & Ward, § 208.)

In a contest between nonparents for guardianship of the person of a minor, the paramount consideration is the best interest of the child in respect to its welfare, and the question of which appointment meets this standard is an issue of fact.

(Guardianship of Walsh,

100 Cal.App.2d 194, 198-199 [223 P.2d 322, 22 A.L.R.2d 689];

Guardianship of Kiles,

89 Cal.App.2d 445, 448 [200 P.2d 886];

Estate of Dellow,

1 Cal.App. 529 [82 P. 558].) Thus a finding upon this issue is essential. We need not consider the claimed necessity for a finding that respondents are fit persons to be guardians, since the allegation of their petition to this effect is not denied.

It is not necessary that findings of fact in a probate proceeding be contained in a writing separate from the order. On the contrary, recitals in the order may be deemed findings.

(Estate of Rosland,

76 Cal.App.2d 709, 711 [173 P.2d 830];

Estate of Fowler,