Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
K.G., the paternal grandmother and guardian of A.M., appealed juvenile court orders terminating her guardianship and removing A.M. from her custody. She was named A.M.'s guardian in October 2019, when A.M. was about three months old. A.M.'s father, D.M.G., was a registered sex offender convicted in 2019 of sending harmful matter to a minor with intent to seduce. Despite repeated warnings from the Riverside County Department of Public Social Services (DPSS), the Guardian allowed Father to live in the home and have unsupervised contact with A.M.
DPSS expressed concern in February 2023 that Father lived in the home, and in February 2024 filed a dependency petition under Welfare and Institutions Code section 300, subdivision (b), which was sustained. The Guardian completed services and the case was terminated in September 2024. However, on July 10, 2025, DPSS received a new referral alleging neglect and sexual abuse. Investigation revealed Father had lived in the home since his release from prison in July 2023, contrary to the Guardian's assurances. A.M. told a social worker she had been left alone with Father 'several times' when he would take her on a walk to the liquor store, and that she often spent time alone with him including when she showered, when he tucked her in to bed, and when playing video games together in his room. Father was arrested on July 17, 2025, for soliciting a sex worker and making incriminating statements about minor girls; law enforcement later found nude photographs of females who appeared very young on his phone. DPSS filed a petition on July 17, 2025, and filed a motion in September 2025 asking the court to terminate the guardianship.
The Court’s Holding
The Court of Appeal rejected the Guardian's due process claim regarding the timing of the amended petition, finding she forfeited the argument by failing to object at the hearing. On the merits, the court held that substantial evidence supported the juvenile court's jurisdictional finding under section 300, subdivision (b). The Guardian's repeated failure to protect A.M. from Father's known risks—despite warnings and prior dependency involvement—demonstrated neglectful conduct creating a substantial risk of serious harm.
The court also affirmed the removal order. The juvenile court found by clear and convincing evidence that there would be a substantial danger to the physical health, safety, protection, or physical or emotional well-being of the child in the guardian's home, and that there are no reasonable means by which the child's physical health can be protected without removal. The Guardian's minimization of Father's conduct and continued allowance of unsupervised contact undermined her proposed safety measures. The court further held that the juvenile court did not abuse its discretion in finding that terminating the guardianship was in A.M.'s best interests. Because the guardianship was terminated, the Guardian was not entitled to reunification services under section 361.5, subdivision (a).
Key Takeaways
- A guardian's failure to object to an amended petition at the hearing forfeits any due process challenge to its timing on appeal.
- Substantial evidence supported jurisdiction where the guardian allowed a registered sex offender with ongoing deviant behavior to live in the home and have unsupervised contact with the child.
- Removal was proper because the guardian's history of minimizing risks and failing to enforce boundaries showed that in-home services would not adequately protect the child.
- Terminating a probate guardianship during dependency proceedings is reviewed for abuse of discretion and requires only a finding that termination serves the child's best interests.
- Once a guardianship is lawfully terminated, the former guardian is not entitled to family reunification services under Welfare and Institutions Code section 361.5.
Why It Matters
This decision reinforces that juvenile courts may terminate guardianships and remove children when guardians persistently expose them to known dangers, even without evidence of actual abuse. It underscores that a guardian's insight and willingness to protect are central to both jurisdictional and dispositional determinations.
The opinion also clarifies procedural consequences in dependency appeals: failures to object below can forfeit due process claims, and guardians whose guardianships are terminated lose statutory entitlement to reunification services. The ruling provides guidance on applying substantial evidence and abuse of discretion standards in guardianship termination cases.