Los Angeles Trust Law Firm

The case of the "Octo-mom" continues. Petitioner, who was not related to the mother Nadya Suleman or her children, filed a petition seeking appointment of a guardian of the octuplets' estates. The trial court ruled that although California Probate Code section 1520(a) permits a "relative or other person on behalf of the minor" to petition the court for appointment of a guardian of the minor's estate, that person must plead ultimate facts demonstrating financial misconduct or allege other information sufficient to warrant court interventions. (Suleman v. Superior Court of Orange County (2010) 180 Cal.App.4th 1287.)
On appeal, the Appellate Court affirmed the trial court's ruling that the petitioner, a non-relative, lacked standing under Probate Code section 1510(a). The Appellate Court further ruled that the trial court erred in ordering an investigation of the Suleman family's finances without providing Ms. Suleman with notice or an opportunity to be heard. This ruling further supports California's position that while a non-relative may petition to be appointed as a guardian of the minor, their petition must allege ultimate facts showing financial mismanagement or facts showing that court intervention is necessary.

The Octo-Mom Case continues on Appeal