Filed 7/29/26 Guardianship of A.C. 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 the Persons of A.C. et al., Minors.

B.C., as Guardian, etc., et al., F090947

Petitioners and Respondents, (Super. Ct. No. PR-23-000731)

v.

F.C., OPINION

Objector and Appellant.

APPEAL from orders of the Superior Court of Stanislaus County. Sarah
Birmingham, Judge.
F.C., in pro. per., for Objector and Appellant.
No appearance for Petitioners and Respondents.
-ooOoo-
INTRODUCTION
This case concerns the probate guardianship of two girls—now 14-year-old A.C.
and 12-year-old K.C. (collectively, the girls). The probate court awarded their maternal
grandmother M.C. (maternal grandmother) a guardianship of A.C. and their paternal
grandparents, B.C. and F.C., Sr. (paternal grandparents), a guardianship of K.C. The
girls’ father, F.C., Jr. (father), who has been a self-represented litigant throughout these
proceedings, appeals from the probate court’s orders, which also granted the guardians
discretion over whether parental visitation could occur and imposed requirements that
father must complete before he can petition the court to modify the visitation order.
On appeal, father contends the probate court erred in: (1) failing to refer K.C.’s
case to child protective services; (2) relying on the court investigator’s reports when he
was never interviewed; and (3) granting the guardians sole discretion to determine
whether visitation would occur and requiring him to complete specified requirements
before seeking to modify the visitation order.1 Finding no merit to father’s contentions,
we affirm.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
Paternal Grandparents Are Appointed Guardians
In July 2023, paternal grandparents filed a petition seeking to be appointed the
guardians of the girls and their then 14-year-old brother J.C. (son). While father initially
objected to the guardianship, he later filed a declaration stating he did not object. The
probate court issued temporary orders.
A court investigator prepared a preappointment report and recommendation. The
investigator interviewed paternal grandparents and the two older children. The
investigator did not contact father since father did not object to either the guardianship or
to paternal grandparents being appointed the children’s guardians. The investigator

1 Neither paternal grandparents nor maternal grandmother filed a responsive brief in
this matter. Thus, we “ ‘will decide the appeal on the record, the opening brief, and any
oral argument by appellant.’ ” (Conness v. Satram (2004) 122 Cal.App.4th 197, 200,
fn. 3; Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.220(a)(2).) “We examine the record on the basis of
appellant’s brief and reverse only if prejudicial error is found.” (Conness, supra,
122 Cal.App.4th at p. 200, fn. 3.)

2.
contacted child protective services, which reported there had been a total of 11 referrals
concerning the family in 2023, and there was an open investigation alleging father
physically and emotionally abused the children. The investigator recommended that
paternal grandparents be appointed the children’s guardians and that the children have no
contact with father until he could provide evidence of individual counseling sessions with
a licensed therapist and a recommendation from the therapist regarding visits.
On November 29, 2023, the probate court issued an order appointing paternal
grandparents as the children’s guardians and issued permanent letters of guardianship.2
Father Petitions to Terminate the Guardianship
At some point after the probate court granted guardianship over the children to
paternal grandparents, they sent the girls to live with their maternal grandmother in
Texas.
In May 2024, father filed a petition to terminate the guardianship.3 On
December 23, 2024, following a hearing at which the parties testified, the probate court
granted paternal grandparents’ request to terminate the guardianship as to J.C. only and
returned custody of him to father subject to the juvenile court’s jurisdiction. The probate
court confirmed a December 26, 2024 trial date and ordered the parties to appear in
person.
The minute order of the unreported December 26, 2024 hearing states that father
objected that the investigator’s report was not provided to him as required by Probate
Code section 1513, subdivision (d)(5).4 Father, however, testified he consented to the
guardianship petition in September 2023, and admitted he was not present when

2 The probate court’s order and the permanent letters are not in the appellate record.
3 Father’s petition to terminate the guardianship is not in the appellate record.
4 Probate Code section 1513, subdivision (d), requires all reports to be made
available to the parties at least three court days before the hearing on the guardianship
petition.

3.
permanent guardianship was granted on November 20, 2023. The probate court heard
testimony and arguments on father’s petition to terminate the guardianship over the girls
and return custody to him. Paternal grandparents testified that they wanted the girls to
remain in Texas with the maternal grandmother, as they feared returning the girls to
father was not in their best interest. They did not have a current home for the girls and
could not take them back. Father agreed the girls were better off in Texas due to the
issues he was having with J.C., but he wanted the guardianship terminated.
The probate court was concerned about the girls’ physical safety and paternal
grandparents’ inability to provide a home for them. Pursuant to Guardianship of
Christian G. (2011) 195 Cal.App.4th 581 and Probate Code section 1513, subdivision (c),
the court referred the matter to child protective services for an investigation under
Welfare and Institutions Code sections 328 and 329. The court entered an interim
visitation order granting father one phone call with the girls at their discretion.
Maternal Grandmother Files Guardianship Petitions
Maternal grandmother filed a petition to terminate the guardianship in February
2025, and a petition for temporary guardianship on April 1, 2025.5 On April 2, 2025, the
probate court held a hearing concerning maternal grandmother’s petition to terminate.6
According to the reporter’s transcript of the hearing, the court stated it received a report
from the child protective services’ investigator and a declaration and response from
father.7 The court stated that child protective services had not filed a dependency petition
but rather indicated it wanted to keep the girls in Texas, while father wanted the children

5 Maternal grandmother’s petitions are not in the appellate record.
6 The minute order of the April 2, 2025 hearing states that a memo was filed by the
court investigator, which was “previously reviewed and signed by the Court.” The memo
is not in the appellate record.
7 Neither the report from child protective services nor father’s declaration and
response are in the appellate record.

4.
returned to California. The court noted maternal grandmother filed a petition for
temporary guardianship the prior day.
Father told the probate court that while he had filed a consent for guardianship
with paternal grandmother on September 25, 2023, he told the court days later that he
wanted to submit evidence, which the court said he could share with the investigator, but
the investigator never contacted him. The court stated it had previously addressed this
issue, and the current issue was whether to terminate the guardianship. To that end, the
court previously asked child protective services to investigate because the court did not
have independent information about the girls’ situation, and it wanted to see if child
protective services would file a petition, but it apparently declined to do so. Father
confirmed he wanted the girls to remain in Texas only until they completed their school
year.
The probate court decided to refer the matter to the juvenile dependency court to
review the social worker’s decision not to file a dependency petition pursuant to Welfare
and Institutions Code section 331, subdivision (b). The court set a continued hearing for
April 28, 2025.
The probate court subsequently submitted a written request for the juvenile court
to review the child protective services’ decision not to commence dependency
proceedings, which stated that on April 4, 2025, the probate court referred the girls to the
county child welfare agency for an investigation to determine whether to commence
juvenile court proceedings and the probate court received the agency’s report but the
agency declined to commence such proceedings. The probate court asked the juvenile
court to review that decision and order the agency to file a petition on the girls’ behalf.
The juvenile court responded that the girls were not prima facie described by Welfare and
Institutions Code section 300, and affirmed the social worker’s decision not to commence
proceedings.

5.
 At the April 28, 2025 hearing, father again asserted the first investigation was not
done properly. The probate court did not agree and noted it issued a minute order
addressing that issue. The probate court ordered a second investigation based on the new
petition to appoint subsequent guardians. The probate court told father that if he wanted
to participate in the investigation he would be contacted. The probate court set a hearing
to receive the investigator’s report on June 12, 2025. That hearing was held and
continued to August 4, 2025, when the court investigative report was filed. The hearing
was then continued to September 23, 2025, to address father’s visitation.
The Guardianship Orders
Court investigator Jose Delgadillo prepared a September 18, 2025 memorandum
regarding visitation, in which he noted that three court investigator reports were
completed on November 20, 2023, April 1, 2025, and July 30, 2025.8 The investigator
contacted maternal grandmother, who lived with the girls in Texas, and father who lived
in California. The report stated that father was requesting the following with respect to
visitation: (1) two unsupervised visits during the week, and an overnight visit from
Friday night to Saturday night on two weeks’ advance notice to the guardian; and (2) that
J.C. be able to attend the visits so the children could see each other. Father could not
recall the last time he spoke with the girls on the phone and asserted the guardian made it
difficult for him to have phone contact with them.
The investigator reported that maternal grandmother requested that either she or a
maternal aunt supervise visits with father due to father’s verbal and emotional abuse. She
did not agree to overnight visits. Maternal grandmother told the investigator that (1) the
girls did not wish to visit father; (2) his last phone contact with them was at the end of
August 2025; (3) she feared for the children’s safety with father and J.C. due to son’s

8 The April 1, 2025 and July 30, 2025 court investigator reports are not in the
appellate record.

6.
unstable mental health; (4) J.C. had sexually abused or touched inappropriately one of the
girls around 2020 while in father’s care; and (5) K.C. would be relocating to California
by September 22, 2025, to live with paternal grandparents.
The investigator recommended the following: (1) the girls should have supervised
visits with father in Texas three evenings a week; (2) father shall notify the guardian of
his intent to exercise visitation at least two weeks in advance; (3) visits should be
supervised by either the guardian or maternal aunt; (4) the parties shall arrange
transportation as the parties can agree; and (5) the parties can arrange further visits as
they can agree.
At the September 23, 2025 hearing, the probate court acknowledged the
investigator’s report on visitation and provided father with a copy, which would be
mailed to the parties with a minute order of the hearing. According to the minute order,
maternal grandmother testified that K.C. was in California and paternal grandmother
testified K.C. had been in her custody since September 22, 2025. The guardians testified
the girls were not getting along and would get into physical fights. The court set a
hearing on the custody and separation of the girls for October 28, 2025, which was
continued to November 3, 2025.
At the November 3, 2025 hearing, the probate court granted permanent
guardianship of A.C. to maternal grandmother, permanent guardianship of K.C. to
paternal grandparents, and dismissed maternal grandmother’s petition for guardianship as
to K.C. The minute order of the hearing stated the court read and considered the court
investigator’s report pursuant to Probate Code section 1513, subdivision (c). The court
made the following visitation orders as to both girls: (1) all parental visitation would be
at the guardians’ sole discretion; and (2) prior to petitioning the court to modify visitation
or for termination, the petitioning parent must provide proof of completion of a parenting
class, a negative hair follicle drug test result, a stable environment of at least 12 months,
proof of continued mental health treatment and stable employment of at least 12 months,

7.
and be clear from any parole or probation terms and conditions. The court dismissed
father’s petition to terminate the guardianship.
The probate court subsequently entered formal orders appointing paternal
grandparents K.C.’s guardian and maternal grandmother A.C.’s guardian and issued
letters of guardianship.
DISCUSSION
Father contends the probate court erred when it: (1) failed to refer K.C.’s matter
to the juvenile court under Welfare and Institution Code sections 328, 329 and 331,
subdivision (b); (2) relied on the court investigator reports when father was never
interviewed; and (3) gave the guardians discretion over whether visitation would occur
and imposing conditions on father before he could seek to change the visitation order.
We address each contention in turn.
Probate Guardianships
We begin with a brief review of probate guardianships. 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
[Probate Code] 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

8.
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.)
Failure to Refer the Matter to the Child Protective Services
Father contends the probate court’s order granting letters of guardianship to
paternal grandparents over K.C. must be reversed because the probate court did not refer
the case to child protective services for review after K.C. returned to paternal
grandparents’ custody in September 2025. Father acknowledges that the probate court
referred the guardianship case to child protective services in April 2025, when child
protective services and the juvenile court declined to commence dependency
proceedings, but he asserts the probate court was required to make a new referral when
K.C. changed custody.
Probate Code section 1513, subdivision (b) provides that “[i]f the proposed ward
is or may be described by Section 300 of the Welfare and Institutions Code, the court
may refer the matter, in writing, to the local child welfare agency to initiate an
investigation pursuant to Section 329 of the Welfare and Institutions Code.”9 The child
welfare agency is required to immediately investigate as necessary to determine whether
juvenile court proceedings should be commenced and report “the findings and
conclusions of its investigation, any decision made as a result, and the reasons for the
decision,” to the probate court within three weeks of the referral. (Prob. Code, § 1513,
subd. (b); Welf. & Inst. Code, § 329, subd. (b).) The probate court must refrain from
hearing and determining the petition to appoint a guardian until the agency completes the
investigation and submits the report to the probate court. (Prob. Code, § 1513,
subd. (b)(2).) If the child welfare agency does not commence juvenile dependency
proceedings, the probate court may apply to the juvenile court for an order directing the

9 Welfare and Institutions Code section 300 provides that a child who comes within
the descriptions listed in the statute “is within the jurisdiction of the juvenile court which
may adjudge that person to be a dependent child of the court.”

9.
agency to commence juvenile dependency proceedings pursuant to Welfare and
Institutions Code section 331. (Prob. Code, § 1513, subd. (b)(4).)
Probate Code section 1513, subdivision (c), with its use of the word “may,” grants
the probate court discretion to refer a guardianship proceeding to child protective services
to begin an investigation if the proposed ward is or may be described by Welfare and
Institutions Code section 300. (Chui v. Chui (2022) 75 Cal.App.5th 873, 898 [using the
word “may” in a statute “implies discretionary decisionmaking authority”].) We review
the exercise of discretion by the probate court for abuse of discretion. (Estate of Denton
(1971) 17 Cal.App.3d 1070, 1074–1075 [appellate court reviews for abuse of discretion
the probate court’s permissive and not mandatory exercises of power].)
Under the abuse of discretion standard, “ ‘ “a reviewing court will not disturb [a
trial court’s] decision unless the trial court has exceeded the limits of legal discretion by
making an arbitrary, capricious, or patently absurd determination [citations].” ’
[Citations.] … ‘ “The appropriate test for abuse of discretion is whether the trial court
exceeded the bounds of reason.” ’ ” (In re Stephanie M. (1994) 7 Cal.4th 295, 318–319.)
Even under the abuse of discretion test, factual findings are reviewed for substantial
evidence. (In re C.B. (2010) 190 Cal.App.4th 102, 123.) Under the substantial evidence
test, we draw all reasonable inferences from the evidence to support the findings and
order of the juvenile court and review the record in the light most favorable to the court’s
determinations. (In re Heather A. (1996) 52 Cal.App.4th 183, 193; In re Xavier R.
(2011) 201 Cal.App.4th 1398, 1416 [“we resolve all evidentiary disputes in favor of the
court’s rulings”].) “We do not second-guess the court’s credibility calls or reweigh the
evidence.” (In re Merrick V. (2004) 122 Cal.App.4th 235, 254.)
Father has not shown that the probate court abused its discretion in not referring
K.C.’s case to child protective services in September 2025. This is because father has not
provided us with an adequate record to review his claim. It is father’s burden to
demonstrate, based on the appellate record, “that the trial court committed an error that

10.
justifies reversal of the judgment.” (Jameson v. Desta (2018) 5 Cal.5th 594, 608–609.)
In addition, it is his burden to show prejudice from any error, as “we cannot presume
prejudice and will not reverse the judgment in the absence of an affirmative showing
there was a miscarriage of justice.” (Century Surety Co. v. Polisso (2006) 139
Cal.App.4th 922, 963; see Cal. Const., art. VI, § 13 [“No judgment shall be set aside, or
new trial granted, in any cause, on the ground of … the improper admission or rejection
of evidence, … unless, after an examination of the entire cause, including the evidence,
the court shall be of the opinion that the error complained of has resulted in a miscarriage
of justice”].) Reversal is only required where the appellant demonstrates prejudicial error
based on sufficient legal argument supported by citation to the record. (Yield Dynamics,
Inc. v. TEA Systems Corp. (2007) 154 Cal.App.4th 547, 557.)
Here, father failed to include in the appellate record documents that would show
K.C.’s circumstances, namely, the court investigator’s reports dated April 1, 2025, and
July 30, 2025, and maternal grandmother’s petitions and father’s petition to terminate the
guardianship. Father also failed to provide either a reporter’s transcript or a settled
statement of the June 12, 2025, August 4, 2025, September 23, 2025, October 28, 2025,
and November 3, 2025 hearings.10
Without the entire appellate record, it is impossible for us to assess whether the
trial court abused its discretion in not referring K.C.’s case to child protective services
when K.C. moved back to California. This is because it is not apparent from the record
provided that K.C. was or could have been subject to dependency court jurisdiction.
Given the lack of record, we must conclude that father has forfeited this contention. (See
Keyes v. Bowen (2010) 189 Cal.App.4th 647, 655 [because a trial court judgment is
presumed correct, a failure to support each point with citations to material facts in the

10 The record father provided shows that testimony was received at the
September 23, 2025 hearing.

11.
record may result in forfeiture of the point raised]; Gee v. American Realty &
Construction, Inc. (2002) 99 Cal.App.4th 1412, 1416 [if record is inadequate for
meaningful review, the appellant defaults and the trial court’s decision is affirmed];
Duarte v. Chino Community Hospital (1999) 72 Cal.App.4th 849, 856 [inadequate record
waives argument].) On the record before us, there is nothing to suggest that K.C. could
be subject to juvenile court jurisdiction once she returned to paternal grandparents’
custody.
The Court Investigator’s Report
Father asserts the probate court erred in relying on the court investigator’s reports
when it issued orders concerning parental visitation because the court investigator never
interviewed him and his plans were never considered.
Probate Code section 1513, subdivision (a) requires a court investigator to
investigate and submit a report concerning (1) each proposed guardianship of the person
that addresses certain factors, including social histories of the proposed guardian and
proposed ward, (2) the relationship of the proposed ward to the proposed guardian, and
(3) the anticipated duration of the guardianship and the plans of each parent and the
proposed guardian to provide a stable and permanent home for the child. The probate
court may waive an investigation for good cause. (Prob. Code, § 1513, subd. (a).)
Before ruling on the guardianship petition, the court must read and consider all submitted
reports and affirm that it has done so in the minutes or on the record. (Prob. Code,
§ 1513, subd. (c).)
This claim fails for the same reasons as the prior claim—the record is inadequate
for appellate review. As the court investigator stated in the September 18, 2025 report,
three other court investigator reports were completed: a November 20, 2023 report; an
April 1, 2025 report; and a July 30, 2025 report. The record, however, only contains the
November 20, 2023 report, which stated that father was not contacted because he filed a
declaration stating he consented to the guardianship. The other two reports are not in the

12.
record and the fourth report filed in September 2025 showed that father was contacted
and the court investigator conveyed father’s requests concerning visitation.
Thus, while father was not interviewed when guardianship was awarded to
paternal grandparents in 2023, he was interviewed concerning visitation in 2025. Since
the two other reports are not in the appellate record, we cannot determine whether father
was interviewed for them. Accordingly, we presume the reports complied with the
Probate Code and the probate court appropriately considered them. (Bennett v. McCall
(1993) 19 Cal.App.4th 122, 127 [“ ‘[i]f any matters could have been presented to the
court below which would have authorized the order complained of, it will be presumed
that such matters were presented’ ”].)
To the extent father is attempting to challenge the failure to interview him for the
November 2023 court investigator’s report, which supported the award of guardianship to
paternal grandparents in 2023, that challenge is untimely. “An order granting letters of
guardianship is final and appealable under Probate Code section 1301, subdivision (a).”
(Adoption of Myah M. (2011) 201 Cal.App.4th 1518, 1531.) Since father did not appeal
the 2023 order granting the letters of guardianship to paternal grandparents, we have no
jurisdiction to review that order or the investigator’s report used to support that order.
The Visitation Order
“A guardian in a probate proceeding may be ordered to accommodate reasonable
requests for visitation and contact with the [parent] … as may be in the best interest of
the child. The frequency, duration, and nature of the visits are the subject of the court’s
sound discretion.” (Guardianship of Kaylee J. (1997) 55 Cal.App.4th 1425, 1432.) “The
precise measure is whether the trial court could have reasonably concluded that the order
in question advanced the ‘best interest’ of the child.” (In re Marriage of Burgess (1996)
13 Cal.4th 25, 32.) Here, father claims the probate court abused its discretion by giving
the guardians discretion to determine whether visitation would occur and requiring him to

13.
satisfy specified prerequisites before he may seek to modify the visitation order, citing
three cases concerning visitation in juvenile dependency cases. This claim lacks merit.
Father has not provided a settled statement of the unreported November 3, 2025
hearing at which the visitation orders were made, and he has not provided two of the four
investigator reports. Therefore, father cannot show an abuse of discretion by showing the
probate court’s order is not supported by substantial evidence, much less that the court
contravened uncontradicted evidence. (Continental Baking Co. v. Katz (1968) 68 Cal.2d
512, 527 [discretion is abused when the court’s exercise of discretion “ ‘exceeded the
bounds of reason or contravened the uncontradicted evidence’ ”].)
Moreover, father does not explain how the cases that he cites, which arose in
juvenile court dependency cases, should be applied in the context of a probate
guardianship. Two of those cases, In re Hunter S. (2006) 142 Cal.App.4th 1497, 1500,
1506 and In re Julie M. (1999) 69 Cal.App.4th 41, 43, 48–51, concern visitation in the
context of ongoing dependency proceedings, before the termination of parental rights. In
those circumstances, regular visits between the noncustodial parent and dependent
children are a prerequisite to family reunification (In re Julie M., at p. 49), and even after
reunification services have been terminated, meaningful visitation is “pivotal to the
parent-child relationship” because under Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26,
subdivision (c)(1)(A) a parent “has a final chance to avoid termination of parental rights
if she can show she has maintained regular contact and visitation with her child, and the
child would benefit from continuing the relationship” (In re Hunter S., at pp. 1504–
1505).
The third case, In re Donnovan J. (1997) 58 Cal.App.4th 1474, concerned the
juvenile court’s delegation of whether visitation occurred to the children’s therapist
without setting criteria for the therapist to determine when visitation would be
appropriate. (Id. at pp. 1475, 1477–1478.) The appellate court found such a delegation
improper because “[t]he superior court, sitting in dependency cases such as this, has the

14.
power and responsibility to regulate visitation between dependent children and their
parents,” which requires the court to define the parties’ rights to visitation. (Id. at
p. 1476.)
All three cases were decided under the juvenile court law (Welf. & Inst. Code,
§ 200 et seq.), which “recognizes the importance of the preservation and strengthening of
family relationships for both dependent and delinquent minors.” (In re James R. (2007)
153 Cal.App.4th 413, 430, discussing Welf. & Inst. Code, § 202, subd. (a).) In those
contexts, visitation is a necessary and integral component of family reunification. (In re
James R., at p. 435.)
Probate guardianship is different from a dependency or delinquency proceeding.
Parental rights are terminated for the duration of the guardianship (Fam. Code, § 7505,
subd. (a)), and the probate court may not order reunification services (Guardianship of
Kaylee J., supra, 55 Cal.App.4th at p. 1432). Father provides no authority that visitation
in a probate guardianship is or should be subject to the same analysis as visitation in a
juvenile court proceeding, where visitation is a component of family reunification.
In sum, father has not shown that the probate court abused its discretion in issuing
its visitation order.
DISPOSITION
The probate court’s orders are affirmed. Father shall bear his own costs on appeal.

DE SANTOS, J.
WE CONCUR:

FRANSON, Acting P. J.

HARRELL, J.

15.