Matter of Ross

California Court of Appeal Oct 9, 1907 No. Civ. No. 346.Published

Before: Hall

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. A court appointing a guardian for a minor under the Code of Civil Procedure lacks the authority to compel a parent who has been deprived of custody to pay the guardian for the child's support, and the court may properly grant a parent visitation rights even if they previously abandoned the child.

Issues

Does a court have the authority to order a parent to pay a court-appointed guardian for the support of a minor child?
Does a court have the authority to grant visitation rights to a parent who has been deprived of the custody of their child?
Did the trial court abuse its discretion in refusing to order the father to pay for the child's support when the father was willing to provide for the child in his own home?

Disposition. affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“Although it has been held that under such proceedings a father may be deprived of the custody of his child, it has never been held that in such proceedings he may be compelled to compensate the guardian for the support of such child.”

“Circumstances may make it desirable and conducive to the well-being of a child that a parent, who has been deprived of its custody or guardianship, have access to such child, and the court appointing the guardian has jurisdiction to so direct.”

Synopsis

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Fresno County. H. Z. Austin, Judge.

The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.

HALL, J.

In October, 1904, the superior court in and for the county of Fresno, after due proceedings, taken in

[598]

accordance with the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure for the appointment of guardians of minors, appointed Charles Hudson the guardian of the person of Emma Ross, a female child, then of the age of six years, the ground for such appointment being, as appears from the finding of the court made upon the hearing of the petition therefor, that the father of said minor, Orrin W. Ross, had abandoned said minor to said Charles Hudson, who is the grandfather of said minor. The mother of said minor was at that time incompetent, and confined in a state asylum for the insane.

Hudson qualified as such guardian, and ever since has had the care and custody of such minor.

In his petition to be appointed such guardian of the person of said minor said Hudson alleged that the father of said minor was able to pay for the support of said minor, and prayed that he be required to pay therefor. The court, however, made no provision for the support of the minor by its father, and made no mention thereof in its order appointing the guardian.

On the twenty-third day of April, 1906, the said guardian petitioned said court for an order, requiring said Orrin W. Ross, the father of said minor, to pay said guardian for the support of said minor the sum of $25 per month thereafter. In this petition the guardian alleged that the father, Orrin W. Ross, was then able to pay a reasonable sum for the support of said minor, and that $25 per month was a reasonable sum therefor, and that she could be better supported were the court to make such order.

Orrin W. Ross filed an answer and cross-petition to said petition, and among other things alleged that he was able, ready and willing to take said minor, and to support her in his own home, and prayed the court to revoke the order appointing said Hudson the guardian of said minor, and for general relief.

The court upon the hearing made the following findings of fact:

1. That since the birth of said minor said Charles Hudson has supported and maintained her to the best of his ability, but that since November 4, 1906, his financial resources have become impaired, and he is not able now to provide adequately for the proper support and maintenance of said minor.

Matter of Ross

AI Brief

Synopsis

HALL, J.

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief