Court Opinion

ID: 9542996
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 16:41:00.115557+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:09:24.605785
License: Public Domain

GOODELL, J., and DOOLING, J.
We concur in the order of reversal on the single ground that appellant was entitled to make his full proof that the appointment of a guardian of the person of his minor son was “necessary or convenient.” (Prob. Code, § 1405.) We do not concur in the statement that the proof of appellant’s right to the present custody of his son establishes even prima facie that an order should be made placing the minor under his guardianship.
The legal relationship of guardian and ward is not in all respects identical with that of parent and child even when the parent is entitled to the child’s exclusive custody. The other parent can always secure an order changing custody upon a showing of changed circumstances (Foster v. Foster, 8 Cal.2d 719 [68 P.2d 719]), while a guardian, once appointed, can only be removed for the reasons specified in section 1580 of the Probate Code and changed circumstances is not one of the grounds there enumerated.
Because a guardianship creates new and different legal rights a petition for guardianship does not seem to us to be the most appropriate method by which to enforce one parent’s present right to custody against the other parent. Habeas corpus or a motion for an order pendente lite in the pending custody proceedings would restore the custody to the father without creating a new and different legal relationship. We are satisfied that the probate court’s discretion in determining whether the appointment of a guardian is “necessary or convenient” is not exclusively controlled by the single fact that a petitioning parent has the legal right to the minor’s custody.