Filed 10/19/26 In re Collin H. CA5
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
In re Collin H. et al., Minors.
ADAM C. et al.,
F090969
Petitioners and Respondents,
(Super. Ct. No. BAT-21-003070)
v.
C.H., OPINION
Objector and Appellant.
THE COURT*
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Kern County. Raymonda
Burnham Marquez, Judge.
Laura D. Pedicini, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Objector and
Appellant.
Michelle B. Evans, for Petitioners and Respondents.
-ooOoo-
* Before Levy, Acting P. J., Detjen, J. and Sandhu, J.
This is the second appeal involving the children Collin H. and Hadley H.
(collectively children). In our first opinion (In re Collin H. et al. (July 5, 2024, F087491)
[nonpub. opn.]), this court reversed the trial court’s order denying the petition to
terminate parental rights. We concluded the trial court erred when it determined the
children were not in the legal custody of petitioners, Adam C. and Melissa C.
(collectively respondents), within the meaning of Probate Code1 section 1516.5.
In the present appeal, the children’s father, C.H. (father), appeals from the trial
court’s order terminating parental rights to the children pursuant to section 1516.5. After
reviewing the record, father’s court-appointed counsel informed this court there were no
arguable issues to raise on father’s behalf. This court granted father leave to personally
file a letter setting forth a good cause showing that an arguable issue of reversible error
exists. (In re Phoenix H. (2009) 47 Cal.4th 835, 844 (Phoenix H.).) A letter brief filed
by father does not present good cause that an arguable issue exists. As set forth more
fully below, father’s appeal is dismissed.
FACTS
A. The Proceedings Through the Prior Appeal
Respondents filed a petition for appointment as guardians of the children on June
10, 2019 (hereafter “guardianship petition”).2 According to the guardianship petition, a
guardianship was necessary because father and A.C. (mother) were abusing drugs. The
guardianship petition also alleged that mother was having frequent rage episodes, which
put the children at risk of harm. On August 22, 2019, the probate court granted the
guardianship petition, and respondents were provided sole care, custody, and control of
1 All further statutory references are to the Probate Code unless otherwise stated.
2 A copy of the guardianship petition was included as an exhibit to father’s trial
brief for the original termination hearing.
the children. All visitation between the children and parents was to be at the sole
discretion of respondents until further order of the probate court.
On October 12, 2021, respondents filed a petition to terminate the parental rights
of mother and father pursuant to Probate Code section 1516.5 and Family Code section
7822 (hereafter “termination petition”).3 The termination petition alleged that both
parents left the children in respondents’ care and custody without any meaningful
communication for a period in excess of six months. The termination petition further
alleged that the children had been in respondents’ physical custody since June 4, 2019,
and respondents had legal custody of the children pursuant to letters of guardianship that
were issued on August 27, 2019. Respondents asserted that neither parent had legal
custody of the children within the last two years.
On November 13, 2021, both parents were served with a citation to appear for the
termination proceedings. A court investigator filed a report recommending that the
termination petition be granted in January 2022. According to the report, Collin, at seven
years of age, was doing well in school and in good health. Hadley, at four years of age,
had some behavioral issues, but she was working with a therapist to exhibit more self-
control. Melissa stated that Collin did not want to visit his parents, but he missed them.
The children were excited about being adopted, but they were too young to fully
understand the termination of parental rights.
Respondents claimed that mother and father had an extensive history of drug
abuse, but parents were able to maintain their sobriety for approximately 13 years.
Parents were reportedly unable to remain sober since relapsing in 2019. The children’s
older brother was living in a legal guardianship with a relative, and that same relative
recently adopted the children’s one-year-old sister.
3 The Family Law Division of the Kern County Superior Court where the
termination petition was filed will be referred to as the “trial court.”
The initial visit between the children and their parents during the guardianship
went well. On another date, parents showed up unannounced to appellants’ home and
attempted to take the children. Melissa stated mother physically attacked her, and Adam
had to intervene. Respondents required parents to complete drug tests and demonstrate
sobriety for a period before agreeing to subsequent visits. Melissa claimed that neither
parent had pursued visitation with the children. Parents did not respond to the
investigator’s attempts to interview them for the report.
At the initial hearing on the termination petition held on January 7, 2022, mother,
father, and respondents were present. Counsel for the respondents was present, and the
trial court appointed counsel for parents. A readiness hearing was set for March 25,
2022, and father was to provide information regarding his potential Indian ancestry to his
counsel before the next hearing.
After multiple continuances to address new information from father regarding his
potential Indian ancestry, the trial court found that respondents complied with the Indian
Child Welfare Act absent any objection from the parties. The parties agreed that the
matter was ready to proceed to trial, and a court trial was set for March 10, 2023.
However, father’s request for a bonding study and motion to set aside the guardianship
orders in probate court resulted in additional continuances.
On July 28, 2023, the trial court confirmed receipt of the bonding study. The
bonding study was completed by Dr. Charree Kashwer, a licensed marriage and family
therapist. The purpose of the bonding study was to assess the bond between father and
the children. Dr. Kashwer interviewed father, respondents, and the children to complete
the bonding study. There were also two sessions with father and the children together.
Prior to the joint session, the children informed Dr. Kashwer that they were
“excited and nervous” about getting to see father. Hadley had no actual memories of
father, and Collin believed father was “really nice.” Collin expressed a desire to be with
his biological parents and respondents “simultaneously.” Collin thought there were no
visits with their parents because they tried to steal Hadley. Dr. Kashwer noted that the
children viewed respondents as their psychological parents and relied on them to meet
their needs for safety and security.
The sessions between the children and father went “smoothly,” and father
interacted well with the children. Dr. Kashwer observed “some distant familiarity”
between father and the children, but there was no evidence of an established parent-child
bond between father and either of the children. Both children expressed interest in seeing
father in the future, but they also desired to be adopted by respondents. Dr. Kashwer’s
assessment concluded that there was no reason to believe that a loss of contact between
father and the children would result in additional psychological harm.
A contested hearing on the termination petition began on December 14, 2023.
Mother, father, and respondents were present and represented by counsel. Both mother’s
and father’s counsel argued that respondents’ guardianship was not valid due to a failure
to comply with ICWA inquiry requirements in the guardianship proceeding. After
hearing testimony and argument on the issue, the trial court denied the petition to
terminate parental rights due to a lack of compliance with ICWA in the guardianship
proceedings. The trial court also found respondents had not met their burden to
demonstrate parents’ intent to abandon the children pursuant to Family Code section
7822.
A timely appeal followed. In a nonpublished opinion filed on July 5, 2024, this
court found the trial court erred when it determined section 1516.5 was not satisfied
because the guardianship order was invalid for lack of ICWA compliance. (In re Collin
H. et al., supra, F087491.) We reversed the trial court’s order and remanded the matter
for a new evidentiary hearing.
B. The Proceedings After Remand
Following remand, counsel were reappointed for parents and children. On August
18, 2025, mother, father, and respondents were present for the new court trial. The trial
court proceeded to allow the parties to present testimony regarding respondents’ request
to terminate parental rights pursuant to section 1516.5. The parties agreed that the only
factor at issue was whether terminating parental rights was in the best interest of the
children.
Melissa testified that Collin, at 11 years of age, and Hadley, at eight years of age,
had been living with respondents and their two biological children for the past six years.
The children had no significant medical issues, and they were attending therapy on a
bimonthly basis. Both children’s behaviors improved since starting therapy in 2021.
After she moved in with respondents at two years old, Hadley was almost kicked
out of preschool for hurting herself during tantrums. Collin had difficulties sleeping and
eating when he started living with respondents. The children began calling respondents
“mom and dad” in November 2019. Respondents’ biological children treated the
children like their own siblings, and everyone in the family loved playing with each
other.
In 2024, respondents sought advice from the children’s therapist about visits with
parents. Parents were provided with the therapist’s contact information to seek out
guidance on the children’s needs before starting visitation. Melissa testified that father
blamed respondents for damaging the children, and he claimed the children were not in
need of therapy.
Melissa stated parents’ only three visits with the children occurred in June 2019.
The first two visits went well and lasted approximately two hours. On June 28, 2019,
parents arrived at respondents’ home unannounced. Respondents agreed to allow parents
to visit with the children, but mother insisted that she was going to take the children with
her. Father and Adam intervened to pull the children away from mother. Law
enforcement was contacted after parents refused to leave the home, but parents left
shortly after the call was made.
There were no further visits after this incident because respondents did not feel
safe having parents at their home. In August 2019, parents and respondents came to an
agreement for visitation at a mediation, but the agreement was not accepted by the court
after parents failed to return to court. Father requested visits with the children, but
respondents refused to permit visitation with father. The children’s only contact with
father during the guardianship occurred in 2023 for the bonding study. Melissa testified
that she viewed mother and father as “amazing parents” before the children came to live
with them, and she believed the children would be returned within a few weeks.
Dr. Kashwer testified regarding the process utilized to complete the bonding
study. Father’s conduct was described as appropriate during his sessions with the
children, and the children appeared happy to be with him. The children spoke positively
about father following the session, but they continued to express their desire to be
adopted by respondents. In Dr. Kashwer’s opinion, there was no evidence of a parent-
child bond between father and either child.
Adam testified that he asked parents to take a drug test before allowing visitation
with the children in September 2019. He did not allow father to visit with the children
after receiving positive drug test results for methamphetamine. Respondents suggested
that parents petition the court in the guardianship case to establish a plan for visitation,
but they never received any petitions requesting visitation from parents. Father contacted
Adam approximately 10 times from August 2019 to March 2020 and 20 times from
March 2020 to October 2021 to request visits with the children. At the time the petition
to terminate parental rights was filed in October 2021, respondents did not believe it was
safe for father to visit with the children. Adam acknowledged that father contacted him
once or twice per month to inquire about speaking to the children in the last year.
The children’s therapist testified regarding the children’s progress in mental health
treatment. She began treating the children in June 2021. Father was offered an
appointment to receive psychoeducation for the children’s mental health needs, but he
failed to attend the scheduled meeting.
Father testified that parents were the primary caregivers for the children from the
time they were born until June 2019. He was involved in feeding, bathing, and putting
the children to bed. Parents took the children to the doctor to meet their health needs. He
testified that he did “everything” he could for the children, and he “lived for” his
children.
Father indicated that there were occasional arguments between himself and
mother, but they tried not to argue in front of the children. He testified that he took the
children away from parents’ home during a “pretty heavy argument” between himself and
mother on June 4, 2019. Father claimed that he last used methamphetamine before
entering a drug rehabilitation program in 2007. He testified that he did not observe
mother use any illegal substances in 2019.
In the summer of 2019, there were approximately 10 occasions where father
requested to see the children. Father testified that he completed approximately seven to
10 drug tests from August 2019 to March 2020. He indicated that the testing center made
the results available to Adam by phone. Father acknowledged that “one or two” of his
drug test results were positive for methamphetamine. He did not have any copies of the
drug test results.
Father believed that visitation was at guardians’ discretion after undergoing
mediation at the courthouse in 2019. His last visit with the children took place on June
28, 2019. There were approximately seven to 10 times that father contacted respondents
to arrange visitation with the children from March 2020 to August 2021. Father testified
that respondents provided two pictures of the children at the beginning of 2025, but they
did not provide him with any other information about the children.
On cross-examination, father admitted to testing positive for methamphetamine
while he was working at a prison in early 2019. He did not keep track of his sobriety date
because it was “more stressful.” Father also acknowledged that the drug test results from
August 2019 to March 2020 were positive for methamphetamine because he “partied a
couple times.” He did not petition the probate court for visits because the court was
closed due to the COVID-19 pandemic in April 2020. Father testified that he took no
steps to petition the court for visitation from March 2020 to October 2021. He also
expressed his belief that respondents kidnapped the children.
Mother testified that she provided for the children’s daily needs from their birth
until June 2019. She requested visits with the children, but no visits were arranged after
respondents became the children’s guardians.
After hearing argument from counsel, the trial court indicated that it would issue a
statement of decision. On November 17, 2025, the court issued a written ruling granting
respondents’ petition to terminate parental rights pursuant to section 1516.5. In making
its determination, the trial court found father was not a credible or reliable witness. It
also concluded that the evidence was undisputed that father minimized his use of
controlled substances and lacked a relationship with the children. The court ultimately
found that it was in the best interest of the children to be adopted by respondents as
provided in section 1516.5. Father filed a timely notice of appeal on December 31, 2025.
DISCUSSION
A probate guardianship is a private custody arrangement, approved but not
supervised by the court; it is distinct from a guardianship ordered as a result of juvenile
dependency proceedings. (Guardianship of Ann S. (2009) 45 Cal.4th 1110, 1133 (Ann
S.).) Probate guardianships provide an alternative placement for children who cannot
safely remain with their parents. (Id. at p. 1122.) “It is the family members and the
guardians who determine, with court approval, whether a guardianship is established, and
thereafter whether parent and child will be reunited, or the guardianship continued, or an
adoption sought under section 1516.5.” (Ibid.)
When the court appoints a guardian, the parent’s authority ceases. (Ann S., supra,
45 Cal.4th at p. 1123.) While the court has discretion to grant visitation, parental rights
otherwise are completely suspended for the duration of the probate guardianship and the
guardian assumes the care, custody and control of the child. (Id. at pp. 1123–1124.)
“Unless ended by court order, the guardianship continues until the child [either] ‘attains
majority or dies.’ ” (Id. at p. 1124.) “The court may terminate the guardianship on a
petition by the guardian, a parent, or the child, based on the child’s best interest.” (Ibid.)
A proceeding under section 1516.5 may be brought when all of the following
requirements are satisfied: “(1) One or both parents do not have the legal custody of the
child. [¶] (2) The child has been in the physical custody of the guardian for a period of
not less than two years. [¶] (3) The court finds that the child would benefit from being
adopted by their guardian.” (§ 1516.5, subd. (a)(1)–(3). ) The guardian bears the burden
of making the requisite showings under section 1516.5 by clear and convincing evidence.
(See Ann S., supra, 45 Cal.4th at p. 1127.)
“ ‘Benefit’ in this context means that adoption would be the best alternative for the
child” and requires a determination of the child’s best interest. (Ann S., supra, 45 Cal.4th
at p. 1128, fn. 10.) In making this determination, the court considers all factors relating
to the child’s best interest, including but not limited to the nature and extent of the child’s
relationship with his or her birth parents, his or her guardian and the guardian’s family,
and any siblings or half siblings. (§ 1516.5, subd. (a).) Other relevant factors “include
the circumstances leading to guardianship, the parent’s efforts to maintain contact with
the child, any exigencies that might hamper those efforts, and other evidence of
commitment to parental responsibilities.” (Ann S., supra, 45 Cal.4th at p. 1132.)
While the trial court’s ruling regarding the best interest of the child must be based
on clear and convincing evidence (Fam. Code, § 7821), our role is limited to determining
whether substantial evidence supports the conclusions reached by the trial court in
utilizing that standard. (In re Noreen G. (2010) 181 Cal.App.4th 1359, 1382.)
An appealed-from judgment or order is presumed correct. (Denham v. Superior
Court (1970) 2 Cal.3d 557, 564.) It is the appellant’s burden to raise claims of reversible
error or other defect and present argument and authority on each point made. If the
appellant fails to do so, the appeal may be dismissed. (In re Sade C. (1996) 13 Cal.4th
952, 994.) Having reviewed father’s letter brief, we find father has not made a showing
of good cause that an arguable issue exists. (Phoenix H., supra, 47 Cal.4th at p. 846.)
In his letter brief, father primarily discusses the facts surrounding respondents’
decision to deny his requests for visitation after the guardianship was ordered. Father
asserts that the trial court failed to consider respondents’ denial of visitation while
evaluating the children’s best interests. Father’s letter brief furnishes no valid argument
with relevant legal authorities for his purported claim of error. (See In re Sade C., supra,
13 Cal.4th at p. 994 [parents must “ ‘present argument and authority on each point made’
”].) Nor does father show that any claim of error, assuming it was true, constitutes a
basis for reversing the underlying orders.
Father’s argument that the trial court did not adequately consider respondents’
denial of visitation fails to recognize that his relationship with the children was not
disrupted at the time of the termination hearing. Instead, this separation occurred “at
least two years earlier when the guardianship [was] established.” (Ann S., supra, 45
Cal.4th at p. 1133.) The children viewed respondents as their psychological parents, and,
after years of guardianship, had “a fully developed interest in a stable, continuing, and
permanent placement with a fully committed caregiver.” (Id. at p. 1136.) “The
Legislature has determined that a child’s need for stability cannot be postponed
indefinitely to conform to an absent parent’s plan to reestablish contact ‘in the distant
future.’ ” (Adoption of A.B. (2016) 2 Cal.App.5th 912, 923.)
In the present case, the trial court could reasonably determine that any barriers
placed by respondents on contact with parents was justified by parents’ ongoing
substance abuse. Furthermore, we are unable to revisit the trial court’s finding that father
lacked credibility based on his testimony minimizing his substance abuse. (Adoption of
Myah M. (2011) 201 Cal.App.4th 1518, 1539 [“[W]e do not resolve conflicts in the
evidence, pass on the credibility of witnesses, or determine where the preponderance of
the evidence lies.”].) The limited relationship father had maintained over the years was
substantially outweighed by the children’s need for the secure and permanent attachment
that they had with respondents. Accordingly, ample evidence supports the court’s finding
that adoption was in the children’s best interest.
In sum, father has not raised any arguable issues stemming from the termination
hearing. Further, though we are not required to, we have reviewed the record as it relates
to the hearing, and we have found no arguable issues for briefing. (Phoenix H., supra, 47
Cal.4th at pp. 841–842.) Our review of the challenged orders confirms counsel’s
determination that no arguable issues exist. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal.
DISPOSITION
This appeal is dismissed.