5DCA Oral Argument - 2026/02/11 - Feb 11, 2026

argument

5DCA Oral Argument - 2026/02/11

California Fifth District Court of Appeal 39 min 8 chapters transcribed 8 days ago official recording ↗

▲ 0

Transcript

jump: chapters · find in transcript

Transcript

Transcript generated automatically by AI and may contain errors.

What case is being heard and who are the parties involved?

Unknown 0:40

Well

Unknown 2:32

Oh.

Unknown 6:38

What do you want?

Unknown 6:49

Mm-hmm.

Unknown 8:52

Well

Unknown 10:50

Yeah. Mm-hmm.

Unknown 14:50

Well

Unknown 15:01

Well

Anna Carey 18:13

No.

Unknown 18:14

Thank you. Good afternoon. Please be seated. Good afternoon. At this time the um court will call case number F zero nine zero seven three four. This is in the matter of MK and the Superior Court of Merced County and Merced County Human Services Agency. And if you could please state your appearance for the record.

Ann Hansen 18:34

Margaret King in um persona, appropriate persona. Thank you. Ann Hansen on behalf of the Merced County Human Services Agency.

Unknown 18:43

Thank you very much. And uh Ms. Kaye, you've asked for fifteen minutes. Um I'd be happy to tell you if you when you have five minutes remaining if you would like. It's uh if that I'll if you could approach the podium there because we'll be um recording these proceedings. May I take my

Margaret King 19:01

notes?

Unknown 19:02

Oh certainly.

Margaret King 19:09

And you

Unknown 19:10

may

Margaret King 19:10

proceed. Uh well, your honors, good afternoon. Um The core issue is my guardianship, um, that was terminated on November the sixth, twenty twenty five. Without my presence and without notice. So, um, moving forward the Um Let's see here.

How does the petitioner (Margaret King) describe the termination of her guardianship?

Margaret King 19:34

Um I was listed as guardian and president on the November fourth, twenty twenty five hearing, uh which is on record. And the November fourth minute order does not terminate my guardianship. Um November sixth guardianship was terminated and I was not removed. I was I I was actually I'm sorry, removed from the case file at that point as well. Um What I'm respectfully asking for today is that um a review of the November sixth termination of guardianship. Um And uh being that I was recognized as guardian on November fourth and removed as guardian on November sixth without being um Present. Thank you.

Unknown 20:22

Is there anything further you'd like to say at this time?

Margaret King 20:25

No, not at this time either. Okay.

Unknown 20:26

Very well. Thank you very much. You have almost 14 minutes remaining. Thank you. Thank you. Miss Hanson.

Ann Hansen 20:42

Good afternoon, Your Honors. Um, and I will not be taking uh even a fraction of the amount of time you've generously given me Um essentially uh I'm here to say that the November fourth hearing was a termination of Ms. King's guardianship. Um As explained uh in the brief I have submitted to the court. Uh the recommendation of the agency at the November fourth hearing was termination of guardianship. That's the report that was served on Ms. King prior to the hearing, well before the hearing. Um it called for a number of things, termination of guardianship, setting a 366.26 hearing for the minor, and I believe um assigning of educational rights. Um now that was all done November fourth. Ms. King had a contested hearing on November fourth that day where she was adequately represented by council.

Ann Hansen 21:39

Uh she provided testimony on her own behalf.

What arguments does the agency present about notice and the mother’s whereabouts?

Ann Hansen 21:42

Um she was free to cross examine witnesses um and I believe she was afforded full due process that day. Now what did happen that day was the findings and orders also reflected the recommendation of the agency to terminate the guardianship and to set a three six six point two six hearing. Um the what I had discovered the day after. Um was that the the minute order didn't show that termination of guardianship. And what that did was that confused the court clerk's office. Because they kept giving confidential file information from the files to Ms. King, continuing on into the next day after the guardianship had been terminated. They were confused since that termination did not show on the minute order.

Ann Hansen 22:31

So we set a hearing, the court agreed to set a hearing on November sixth to clarify the minute order. That's what was done on November 6th was to ensure that the minute order matched the report, recommendation, and findings that were made on November 4th. And that's what was done on November sixth, Your Honors. Um, nothing substantive was done that day. Everything had been accomplished November fourth. Only a mere clarification was done on November sixth for minute order purposes uh and to clarify with the clerk's office. And that was to provide an extra protection for these confidential records, so that now Ms. King, who is no longer a party to the action.