DecisionDepot
California legal research
All cases
26PG-0033469·shasta·Probate·Guardianship
Hearing 14 days agoCONTINUED

In the Matter of Greyson Vineyard

Petition for Appointment of Guardian of the Person

Hearing date
Aug 10, 2026
Department
42
Judge
Prevailing
N/A
Next hearing
Sep 28, 2026
Appearance
Not required

Motion type

Browse all Petition rulings statewide →

Parties

PetitionerVictoria Vineyard

Ruling

GUARDIANSHIP OF GREYSON VINEYARD CASE NUMBER: 26PG-0033469 Disclosure Re: guardianship cases involving Shasta County Health and Human Services Agency-Judge Wood discloses that her step-daughter, Erinn Watts, is the Administrative Branch Director of the Health and Human Services Agency. In that position, Judge Wood’s step-daughter does not have any involvement in the investigation, management, prosecution or defense of guardianship cases. However, the Court makes this disclosure of an employment relationship between an investigating agency and the Court’s first degree relative as required by California Code of Judicial Ethics.

This matter is on calendar for hearing on a Petition for Appointment of Guardian of the Person. The Petition was filed by the minor’s aunt, Victoria Vineyard. Letters of Temporary Guardianship issued on July 8, 2026, and are set to expire today unless further extended.

The mother, father, and sibling have consented to the guardianship and waived notice. The Court dispenses with notice to the deceased maternal grandfather and paternal grandparents. There is no proof of service of the Notice of Hearing and Petition for the maternal grandmother and insufficient information has been provided to permit the Court to dispense with notice. The maternal grandmother may be served by mail. Prob. Code § 1511(c). Alternatively, the maternal grandmother can sign a consent and waiver of notice (GC-211, section 4), in lieu of being served.

The Court has reviewed the Court Investigator’s report filed on August 3, 2026, which recommends granting the Petition. The Court notes the report indicates the parents no longer consent to the guardianship, however formal objections have not been filed. The Court will inquire whether the child is or may be an Indian child. If Petitioner has reason to know that the child is an Indian child, they must make further inquiry to learn about the child’s Indian heritage.

This matter is continued to Monday, September 28, 2026, at 8:30 a.m. in Department 42 for further proceedings on the Petition. The Temporary Guardianship is ORDERED to remain in effect until the continued hearing date. Petitioner is required to file and serve a new Notice of Hearing for the continued hearing date, along with a copy of the Petition, on the maternal grandmother. In the alternative, if Petitioner cannot serve the maternal grandmother, the Court will require a declaration explaining in detail all efforts of Petitioner to locate and serve her and why she cannot be served, to permit the Court to dispense with notice. Warning: Failure to properly effect service or provide adequate basis to dispense with service as to the necessary parties will result in denial of the Petition. Notice is preserved. No appearance is necessary on today’s calendar.

Cited authorities

Extracting citations from the ruling text…
Verify against the source PDF — LLM extraction may miss or mis-normalize citations.

Looking for case law or statutes not cited here? Search published authorities

Ask about this ruling

Examples: “Why did the court rule this way?” · “What were the procedural grounds?” · “Is appearance required?”

Answers reference only this ruling's text. Not legal advice — always verify against the source PDF.

Find similar rulings

Source

Share