In Re Guardianship of Callaway

BARNARD, P. J.

On July 15, 1931, an order was entered in the Superior Court of San Bernardino County appointing the respondent as guardian of the person of Anna May Callaway, a minor child, and letters of guardianship were duly issued. The petition in the matter alleged that the said minor had been in the custody of petitioner and his wife since about April 2, 1927; that the parents of said child had relinquished her to the petitioner and his wife; that there were no relatives of the minor residing in San Bernardino County; and asked that the court cause such notice to be given as upon inquiry was deemed reasonable. Attached to the petition was a consent and waiver of notice signed by the petitioner’s wife. On the same day another order to the effect that no notice of the time and place of hearing the petition be given was filed.

On November 18, 1932, on application of the mother and grandmother of the child, a citation was issued requiring the respondent to show cause why these letters of guardianship should not be revoked. This application was based upon the ground that the court had'no jurisdiction to make the original order appointing a guardian, since no notice of the proceeding was given to the mother or grandmother of the child. Affidavits of the mother and grandmother were filed in which they alleged that the grandmother had resided continuously at a certain address in Venice, California, for a period of eight years; that this fact and this address were known to the respondent; and that the respondent at all times knew that the mother of the child could be reached by communicating with the grandmother at that address. After a hearing, an order was entered denying the application to vacate and set aside the appointment of a guardian and from this order this appeal is taken.

The appellants concede that the original order appointing a guardian, which does not purport to recite any facts or acts upon which the jurisdiction of the court depended,

[160]

would be sufficient and conclusive upon the mattter of jurisdiction if it stood alone. It is contended, however, that the additional order to the effect that no notice be given conclusively shows that no notice was in fact given, and that it affirmatively appears therefrom that the court entirely disregarded the statute requiring notice to the parents and therefore had no jurisdiction.