Guardianship of A.R. CA5

Filed 1/19/23 Guardianship of A.R. CA5

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

Guardianship of A.R, a Minor.

OCTAVIO LOPEZ, F083167

Petitioner and Appellant, (Super. Ct. No. 21PR-00140)

v. OPINION CONNIE HERNANDEZ et al.,

Objectors and Respondents.

THE COURT* APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Merced County. Donald J. Proietti, Judge. Octavio Lopez, in pro. per., for Petitioner and Appellant. No response for Objectors and Respondents.

-ooOoo-

* Before Levy, Acting P. J., Peña, J. and Smith, J.

In this second appeal brought by appellant Octavio Lopez1 against the same party, he challenges the trial court’s decision to deny him guardianship over a child, and/or visitation as a stepgrandparent.2 For the reasons presented below, we affirm the order issued by the trial court. PROCEDURAL AND FACTUAL SUMMARY On May 4, 2021, appellant filed a petition asking to be appointed guardian for the youngest daughter of respondent Connie Hernandez (mother). As part of the petition, appellant alleged he used to live with the parents of the child and during that time he was the primary caregiver for the child. Appellant further alleged the parents were not fit to care for the child, and that despite his strong bond with the child, he was being prevented from seeing the child. Appellant also stated his desire to parent the child, and eventually adopt her. In a summary attached to a declaration filed with the court, appellant explained his relationship with mother’s family and at least two of her children. The attachment also explained in detail how he would care for the child who is the subject of the petition. Following a hearing on May 10, 2021, the trial court denied the petition without prejudice, but set the matter for another hearing in July 2021, and asked child protective services (CPS) to conduct a nonrelative guardianship investigation before the next hearing. The minute order also stated the child is currently living with her parents and identifies appellant as a “former Step-Grandfather.” The order asking CPS to conduct a nonrelative guardianship investigation was rescinded on May 13, 2021. CPS determined the matter did not meet state requirements for intervention.