Walls v. Walls

BRAY, P. J. Appellant Gordon L. Walls, father of the minor, appeals from an order removing him as guardian, on the ground that it is no longer necessary that she he under guardianship.

The sole question•. Did the court abuse its discretion?

Record

Istar is the daughter of appellant and respondent, bom May 29,1950. She lived with both parents until their separation in June, 1957. Since then she has lived with respondent. Respondent has had some 10 or 11 attacks of manic-depressive psychosis starting during her teens. In the summer of 1954 for a few weeks she was a voluntary patient at the Three Oaks Sanitarium where she was treated for a relatively mild hypermanic condition, which responded promptly to treatment. At that time appellant filed a petition for his appointment as guardian of the person and estate of Istar. It was alleged that Istar was a legatee under the will of her maternal grandmother, being probated in New York under whose laws the legacy could be paid only to her legally appointed guardian. The petition further alleged that respondent was under medical care. While in the sanitarium respondent signed the waiver necessary to appellant’s appointment as guardian. He was appointed such guardian July 29, 1954. On respondent’s release the parties lived together until in 1957 respondent filed suit for divorce seeking custody of Istar. That action is now pending. An order for custody in respondent was made.1 Shortly thereafter respondent petitioned to have appellant removed as guardian of Istar’s person on the ground that such guardianship was no longer necessary.2

[580]No Abuse op Discretion

It is conceded that the removal of a guardian is a matter in the discretion of the probate court. (See Guardianship of Brock (1957), 154 Cal.App.2d 431 [316 P.2d 3].) Appellant contends that in granting the petition the court abused its discretion for three reasons, none of which are valid.

(1) No change of circumstances was shown since the order granting guardianship was made. At that time respondent was in a sanitarium. She is now and for about three years has been in good mental and physical condition. This is a very important change of circumstances. Appellant stated that among other reasons he had sought the guardianship of Istar’s person in order to have greater control of the entire situation. The family home was respondent’s separate property and he wanted to be in a position to tell his wife, in the event of marital difficulties, which he apparently anticipated (and which later developed), that if she asked him to leave, she would automatically be asking his ward to leave also. Moreover, the father has left the mother’s home. It might become an important question as to whether the child must leave too. There must be a reassessment of the child’s position.