Lloyd v. Superior Court

SHINN, P. J. Appeals by Margaret Lloyd, mother of Walter Carroll McGowan, a person under 21 years of age, from orders of the Superior Court of San Luis Obispo County sitting as a juvenile court. The first order appealed from was entered February 8, 1961, following the hearing on February 3, 1961. This order accepted a transfer of the proceeding from the County of Santa Barbara and directed that the minor reside in the home of Mr. and Mrs. Ralph W. Steele pending foster home placement. The second order was made May 2, 1961, committing the minor to the care and custody of the county probation officer and directing that he [303]be detained in the home of Mr. and Mrs. Barclay of Atascadero until further order of the court.

The record on appeal consists of the reporter’s transcript of the proceedings on February 3 and the superior court file which was ordered lodged with this court in lieu of a clerk’s transcript. The file shows that upon petition of his father the minor was made a ward of the Juvenile Court of Santa Barbara County February 5, 1951 and that in September of that year he was released to his parents. The present wardship was instituted upon petition of the mother of the minor and was created by order of March 18, 1957, by which the minor was made a ward of the juvenile court. In January 1961 there was pending in Santa Barbara County a petition by the probation officer alleging that the minor had left the home in which he had been placed and seeking an order that he be placed in the juvenile hall pending transfer of the proceeding to San Luis Obispo County. January 16 the proceeding was transferred to San Luis Obispo County and the hearing upon the pending petition was set for February 3.

Mrs. Lloyd appeared and testified in the hearing. She contends in her brief that she had intended on February 3 to move the court to terminate the wardship of the minor and order him returned to her custody but that she had no opportunity to make the motions. However, the proceeding was conducted as if such motions were before the court. Appellant contends that the rulings of the court were based primarily upon the report of the probation officer which had been made at the request of the court; that she was given no copy of the report and was afforded no opportunity to controvert the statements in the report which were the basis of the recommendation of the probation officer that the minor be retained as a ward of the court. Appellant has lodged with the clerk of this court numerous letters attesting to her good character and she seeks to produce other evidence as to the merits of her claim that the proceedings be terminated and that the minor be restored to her custody.