Guardianship of A.H.

Good Law
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaSeptember 12, 2022E077036California2,274 words

Opinion

Opinion

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

On April 18, 2019, Harber filed a petition to be appointed as guardian of two

children, A.H. and M.W. She alleged that she was their maternal grandmother. She was

represented by counsel.

On May 23, 2019, Williams filed a petition to be appointed as guardian of A.H.

and M.W. She alleged that she was M.W.’s paternal grandmother; she had been told that

she was also A.H.’s paternal grandmother, and she had acted as such, though recently she

had been told that she actually was not. Two older siblings of A.H. and M.W. lived with

her. She was in propria persona.

2 On July 29, 2020, the trial court held a trial setting conference. Harber’s counsel

was present, but Harber was not. Using a check-the-box form preprinted with the trial

judge’s name, the trial court ordered the parties to exchange, among other things, “list[s]

of witnesses you intend to call, including parties . . . .” The exchange was to occur by

February 3, 2021. The order also stated, “EXCEPT AS OTHERWISE PROVIDED

BY LAW, YOU WILL NOT BE PERMITTED TO CALL ANY WITNESSES OR

INTRODUCE ANY EVIDENCE NOT INCLUDED IN THE STATEMENTS THE

COURT HEREBY ORDERS YOU TO SERVE.” A written copy of the…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.