Guardianship of Snowball

California Supreme Court Aug 30, 1909 No. Sac. No. 1708.Published

Before: Sloss

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that a prior judicial determination of a parent's fitness for guardianship is res judicata as to all facts existing at the time of that proceeding, precluding their relitigation in subsequent applications. Furthermore, the court affirmed that a parent has a primary right to guardianship absent proof of unfitness or abandonment, and that a father's testamentary appointment of a guardian without the mother's consent is void.

Issues

Whether the doctrine of res judicata precludes relitigation of a parent's fitness for guardianship based on facts existing prior to a previous adjudication.
Whether the evidence presented was sufficient to establish parental abandonment.
Whether a father's testamentary appointment of a guardian is valid without the mother's consent.

Disposition. affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“The order of February, 1908, denying: appellant’s petition, conclusively determined, therefore, as between the parties, the fitness and competency of the mother at that time.”

“Unsupported, as it was, by the written consent of the mother of the children, the attempted appointment was void.”

Synopsis

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Tolo County appointing a mother guardian of the estates of her minor children and denying a petition of their aunt to be appointed guardian of their persons and estates. E. E. Gad-dis, Judge.

The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.

SLOSS, J.

Aldanita Ann Snowball and Carmen Snowball are minor children of Milton S. Snowball, now deceased, and of the respondent Winnette Squires, who, after having been divorced from Milton S. Snowball, was married to Lowell Squires. Each of the children is under fourteen years of age.

Milton S. Snowball died in January, 1908, leaving a will, under the terms of which his children were named as beneficiaries. On June lb, 1908, Lentie C. Snowball (sister of Milton S.) filed her petition praying that she be appointed guardian of the persons and estates of the said minors. Mrs. Squires, the mother of the children, filed a petition on her own behalf in which she asked that she be appointed as guardian of the estate of each of the minors. Both petitions were set for hearing at the same time and such hearing resulted in an order granting the petition of Winnette Squires and denying that of Leutie C. Snowball. Prom this order Leutie C. Snowball appeals.

In her pleading the appellant alleged that Winnette Squires was not a fit or proper or competent person to have the care or custody of either of said minor children. The court found this allegation to be untrue. It appeared that on the seventeenth day of February, 1908, some four months prior to the commencement of the present proceeding, Leutie C. Snowball, the petitioner herein, had filed in the superior court a petition asking that she be appointed guardian of the persons of the said minors. Opposition to this application was filed by Winnette Squires. The matter came on for hearing on the twenty-fourth day of February, 1908, at which time the petitioner amended her petition by inserting an allegation that “Winnette Squires, the mother of the said minors, is incompetent and not a fit and proper person to act as their

[242]

guardian.” This allegation was denied by Mrs. Squires, and thereupon, evidence having been introduced, the court made findings to the effect, among other things, that the mother was competent and a fit and proper person to act as guardian of the children and entered a judgment that the amended petition of Leutie C. Snowball be denied. The proceedings upon this former application having been offered in evidence and shown to the court upon the hearing of the petitions in this proceeding, the court, upon the objection of the respondent, excluded certain testimony offered by the petitioner for the purpose of showing unfitness on the part of the mother. If this ruling had gone so far as to preclude the petitioner from showing, by any character of testimony, the alleged unfitness of Mrs. Squires, it would undoubtedly have been erroneous. The doctrine of

Guardianship of Snowball

AI Brief

Synopsis

SLOSS, J.

More from California Supreme Court

Related research

AI Brief