Petition for a court order compelling compliance with advanced healthcare directive
before the designated hearing time. Once the online check-in is completed, participants will be prompted to join the courtroom’s Zoom hearing session. Participants will initially be directed to a virtual waiting room pending the start of their specific video hearing. Check-in instructions and instructional video are available at. The Court’s “Appearance Procedures and Information--Civil Unlimited and Complex” and “Guidelines for Remote Appearances” also are available at. Those procedures and guidelines will be strictly enforced.
Public Access: The courtroom remains open for all evidentiary and non-evidentiary proceedings. Members of the media or public may obtain access to law and motion hearings in this department by either coming to the department at the designated hearing time or contacting the courtroom clerk at (657) 622-5223 to obtain login information. For remote appearances by the media or public, please contact the courtroom clerk 24 hours in advance so as not to interrupt the hearings.
NO FILMING, BROADCASTING, PHOTOGRAPHY, OR ELECTRONIC RECORDING IS PERMITTED OF THE VIDEO SESSION PURSUANT TO CALIFORNIA RULES OF COURT, RULE 1.150 AND ORANGE COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT RULE 180.
# Case Name Tentative
Case Number
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12. In re Frank L. Before the court is the petition by petitioner Cynthia Tauler Williams (Petitioner) for a court order compelling compliance with advanced healthcare directive. Specifically, Petitioner seeks 2026-01582239 an order directing Memory Garden Memorial Park (Memory Garden) to comply with her instruction to bury the remains of decedent Frank L. Williams (Decedent) pursuant to her authority as the designated agent under Decedent’s
advanced health care directive, and over the objection of respondent Jay Allen Williams (Respondent). As set forth more fully below, the petition is GRANTED.
If a decedent has not provided for his internment by will or other written direction, the right to control disposition of the decedent’s remains, the location and conditions of interment, and the arrangements for funeral goods and services belongs exclusively to decedent’s fiduciary and/or certain surviving relatives in statutory order of priority. (
Looking for case law or statutes not cited here? Search published authorities
Examples: “Why did the court rule this way?” · “What were the procedural grounds?” · “Is appearance required?”
If there is no health care agent, the right passes to decedent's competent surviving relatives—first, to the surviving spouse or registered domestic partner; then to the surviving children, parents, siblings or next of kin under the laws of succession. (Health & Safety Code § 7100, subds. (a)(2)-(6).)
Petitioner produced the advanced health care directive (AHCD) signed by Decedent on February 11, 2025, showing Petitioner is his designated health care agent and he granted her the authority to direct the disposition of his remains. Petitioner also has produced contracts Decedent entered into with Memory Garden in January 2025 providing for his burial along with his wife who predeceased him.
Respondent contends he is Decedent’s son, but does not assert the right to control disposition of Decedent’s remains. Rather, Respondent contends the validity of the AHCD is disputed in a separate, pending probate proceeding and objects to Petitioner’s authority to act. Respondent contends the AHCD is part of a larger packet of estate planning documents that he is challenging in separate probate court proceedings on a variety of grounds.
Respondent contends this petition should be delayed or denied until his challenges to the various documents are determined. He also asserts he has proposed delaying Decedent’s burial until he has had time to arrange and pay for a private autopsy of Decedent. According to Respondent, the autopsy is needed to support his challenges in probate court. Finally, Respondent contends that allowing Petitioner to direct the disposition of Decedent’s remains will effectively validate the AHCD and other documents.
Respondent, however, presents no authority that merely filing a challenge in probate court suspends Petitioner’s authority under the AHCD. Moreover, Respondent has not shown he has taken any action in probate court to suspend any of Petitioner’s powers. Respondent also has not presented any evidence to this court showing any basis for challenging the AHCD. Allowing Petitioner to direct the disposition of Decedent’s remains consistent with the contracts Decedent signed with Memory Garden will not validate Decedent’s various estate planning documents.
Finally, Decedent passed away on or about June 12, 2026, and although Respondent claims the petition should be denied or delayed to allow him to arrange for an autopsy of Decedent, Respondent has failed to show he has taken any steps to do so in the more than six weeks that have elapsed since Decedent’s death. In short, Respondent simply has failed to present any authority or evidence to support his opposition to this petition.
Based on the foregoing, the petition is GRANTED, and Petitioner may submit a proposed order providing for the disposition of Decedent’s remains consistent with his wishes expressed in the contracts he signed with Memory Garden. As Petitioner conceded in her reply, that does not include cremation, and the order shall so provide.
The request for judicial notice Petitioner submitted with the reply is DENIED. New evidence generally may not be presented with the reply, and Petitioner failed to establish any good cause for doing so in this case.
Petitioner’s counsel is ordered to give notice of this ruling.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.