Tuolumne — Probate Notes for March 06, 2026

Source: https://www.tuolumne.courts.ca.gov/system/files/general/pb_d5_03062026.pdf

Superior Court of California, County of Tuolumne Consolidated Calendar Commissioner Steven Streger

Department 5 March 6, 2026 8:30 am DA Case # Date Filed

1 PR12679 Estate of Arnie Michael Jardine 07/23/2025

Maranda Gertz Pro Per

Arnie Michael Jardine

Lothert Law Pro Per

Review Hearing - Inventory and Appraisal

07/23/2025 Petition File Tracking 07/24/2025 High Density

Probate Notes are not tentative rulings. Parties and counsel are expected to appear for the hearings unless this note indicates that “no appearance is necessary.”
Unless a personal appearance is required, all participants may appear via Zoom without first securing Court permission using this link:
https://tuolumne-courts-ca-gov.zoomgov.com/j/1615813960?pwd=NTRMT0NwMDg5cnlYdzZ6VnBXWWFsUT09. [Meeting ID: 161 581 3960; Passcode: 123456].
All matters set for hearing in Department 5 are presumptively assigned to that department for all purposes. Parties retain the right under Cal. Const. art VI §21 to
decline consent to the Commissioner serving as a Judge Pro Tem. By participating in the first hearing, or electing not to attend after due notice thereof, parties are
deemed to have stipulated to the Commissioner serving as a Judge Pro Tem for the entire case. See CRC 2.816.

Hearing may begin closer to 8:50.

This probate action was released into the wild on 10/22/2025. Pursuant to Probate Code §8800, petitioner had four (4) months from then to file a final Inventory & Appraisal. A review of the court file reveals a vacancy where the DE-160 should be. Petitioner to advise.

Note: Although petitioner failed to appear at the prior §8800 review hearing on 01/23/2026, the court file does not include proof of clerk’s notice for today’s hearing so if petitioner fails to appear, hearing may need to be reset.

3/3/2026 8:13 am

Superior Court of California, County of Tuolumne Consolidated Calendar Commissioner Steven Streger

Department 5 March 6, 2026 8:30 am DA Case # Date Filed

2 PR12385 Estate of David Williams 01/16/2024

Terri L. Williams Attorney: E. Lawrence
Brock
Review Hearing - Report - Probate Code 12200

01/16/2024 Petition File Tracking 09/23/2024 High Density

Probate Notes are not tentative rulings. Parties and counsel are expected to appear for the hearings unless this note indicates that “no appearance is
necessary.” Unless a personal appearance is required, all participants may appear via Zoom without first securing Court permission using this link:
https://tuolumne-courts-ca-gov.zoomgov.com/j/1615813960?pwd=NTRMT0NwMDg5cnlYdzZ6VnBXWWFsUT09. [Meeting ID: 161 581 3960; Passcode: 123456].
All matters set for hearing in Department 5 are presumptively assigned to that department for all purposes. Parties retain the right under Cal. Const. art VI §21 to
decline consent to the Commissioner serving as a Judge Pro Tem. By participating in the first hearing, or electing not to attend after due notice thereof, parties
are deemed to have stipulated to the Commissioner serving as a Judge Pro Tem for the entire case. See CRC 2.816.

Hearing may begin closer to 8:50.

No appearance is necessary. The Court, having received and reviewed petitioner’s TUO-PR-125, intends to find by a preponderance of the evidence that good cause exists to extend the period of administration for this estate in order to monetize decedent’s personal injury claim.

A §12200 review hearing will be set for 12/11/2026 at 8:30 a.m.

Clerk to give notice.

3/3/2026 8:13 am

Superior Court of California, County of Tuolumne Consolidated Calendar Commissioner Steven Streger

Department 5 March 6, 2026 8:30 am DA Case # Date Filed

3 PR12680 Estate of Douglas Spraggins 07/24/2025

Gabriel Spraggins Attorney: Kyle Johnson

Douglas Spraggins

Review Hearing - Inventory and Appraisal

07/24/2025 Petition File Tracking 07/29/2025 High Density

Probate Notes are not tentative rulings. Parties and counsel are expected to appear for the hearings unless this note indicates that “no appearance is necessary.”
Unless a personal appearance is required, all participants may appear via Zoom without first securing Court permission using this link:
https://tuolumne-courts-ca-gov.zoomgov.com/j/1615813960?pwd=NTRMT0NwMDg5cnlYdzZ6VnBXWWFsUT09. [Meeting ID: 161 581 3960; Passcode: 123456].
All matters set for hearing in Department 5 are presumptively assigned to that department for all purposes. Parties retain the right under Cal. Const. art VI §21 to
decline consent to the Commissioner serving as a Judge Pro Tem. By participating in the first hearing, or electing not to attend after due notice thereof, parties are
deemed to have stipulated to the Commissioner serving as a Judge Pro Tem for the entire case. See CRC 2.816.

Hearing may begin closer to 8:50.

No appearance is necessary.

This is the §8800 review hearing. A final I&A was filed 12/17/2025, rendering this review hearing moot.

3/3/2026 8:13 am

Superior Court of California, County of Tuolumne Consolidated Calendar Commissioner Steven Streger

Department 5 March 6, 2026 8:30 am DA Case # Date Filed

4 PR12545 Estate of Lawrence Buzz Gurney 11/06/2024

Paul Vaughan Attorney: Jason Pink

DeAnna R Armario Attorney: John Lewman

Review Hearing - Report - Probate Code 12200

11/06/2024 Petition File Tracking 03/11/2025 High Density

Probate Notes are not tentative rulings. Parties and counsel are expected to appear for the hearings unless this note indicates that “no appearance is necessary.”
Unless a personal appearance is required, all participants may appear via Zoom without first securing Court permission using this link:
https://tuolumne-courts-ca-gov.zoomgov.com/j/1615813960?pwd=NTRMT0NwMDg5cnlYdzZ6VnBXWWFsUT09. [Meeting ID: 161 581 3960; Passcode: 123456].
All matters set for hearing in Department 5 are presumptively assigned to that department for all purposes. Parties retain the right under Cal. Const. art VI §21 to
decline consent to the Commissioner serving as a Judge Pro Tem. By participating in the first hearing, or electing not to attend after due notice thereof, parties are
deemed to have stipulated to the Commissioner serving as a Judge Pro Tem for the entire case. See CRC 2.816.

Hearing may begin closer to 8:50.

This probate action was released into the wild on 01/31/2025. Pursuant to Probate Code §§ 12200-12201, petitioner had twelve (12) months from then to file a petition for final distribution or a status report explaining the condition of the estate, the reasons why the estate cannot be distributed and closed, and an estimate of the time needed to close administration of the estate. For those needing to file a status report, this Court has created a very fine local form (TUO-PR-125) to ease the effort. A review of the court file reveals no petition or status report.

Petitioner to advise.

3/3/2026 8:13 am

Superior Court of California, County of Tuolumne Consolidated Calendar Commissioner Steven Streger

Department 5 March 6, 2026 8:30 am DA Case # Date Filed

5 PR12133 Estate of Louis A. Benoit Jr 06/21/2022

Annie Benoit Attorney: Ronald Hillberg

Louis A Benoit

Laurie Jamison Attorney: Ronald Hillberg

Review Hearing - Inventory and Appraisal

FURTHER

12/26/2023 Report on Status of Administration File Tracking 03/25/2025 High Density

Probate Notes are not tentative rulings. Parties and counsel are expected to appear for the hearings unless this note indicates that “no appearance is
necessary.” Unless a personal appearance is required, all participants may appear via Zoom without first securing Court permission using this link:
https://tuolumne-courts-ca-gov.zoomgov.com/j/1615813960?pwd=NTRMT0NwMDg5cnlYdzZ6VnBXWWFsUT09. [Meeting ID: 161 581 3960; Passcode: 123456].
All matters set for hearing in Department 5 are presumptively assigned to that department for all purposes. Parties retain the right under Cal. Const. art VI §21 to
decline consent to the Commissioner serving as a Judge Pro Tem. By participating in the first hearing, or electing not to attend after due notice thereof, parties
are deemed to have stipulated to the Commissioner serving as a Judge Pro Tem for the entire case. See CRC 2.816.

Hearing may begin closer to 8:50.

This was to be a review hearing for the successor administrator to comply with §8800 – but the delays in this case have taken on a life of their own. This is a garden-variety probate case, commenced almost four years ago. It is one of the oldest estate probate cases in the active open inventory of this courthouse, and that shall end forthwith. Treating the whole of the court file as a de facto §12200 report, this Court hereby orders petitioner – pursuant to Probate Code §12201(c)(2) – to have on file within 30 days a petition for final distribution. Petitioner shall give proper notice (unless waived) and set the hearing for 04/24/2026 at 8:30 a.m.

3/3/2026 8:13 am

Superior Court of California, County of Tuolumne Consolidated Calendar Commissioner Steven Streger

Department 5 March 6, 2026 8:30 am DA Case # Date Filed

6 PR12205 Estate of Malcolm Sawin Kincaid 07/25/2022

Devin Evans Attorney: Tyler Dahl

Malcolm Sawin Kincaid

Carla Korda Attorney: Tyler Dahl

Review Hearing - Report - Probate Code 12200

FURTHER

08/30/2023 Report on Status of Administration File Tracking 02/11/2025 High Density

Probate Notes are not tentative rulings. Parties and counsel are expected to appear for the hearings unless this note indicates that “no appearance is
necessary.” Unless a personal appearance is required, all participants may appear via Zoom without first securing Court permission using this link:
https://tuolumne-courts-ca-gov.zoomgov.com/j/1615813960?pwd=NTRMT0NwMDg5cnlYdzZ6VnBXWWFsUT09. [Meeting ID: 161 581 3960; Passcode: 123456].
All matters set for hearing in Department 5 are presumptively assigned to that department for all purposes. Parties retain the right under Cal. Const. art VI §21 to
decline consent to the Commissioner serving as a Judge Pro Tem. By participating in the first hearing, or electing not to attend after due notice thereof, parties
are deemed to have stipulated to the Commissioner serving as a Judge Pro Tem for the entire case. See CRC 2.816.

Hearing may begin closer to 8:50.

No appearance is necessary. The Court, having received and reviewed petitioner’s TUO-PR-125, intends to find by a preponderance of the evidence that good cause exists to extend the period of administration for this estate in order to monetize decedent’s personal injury claim.

A §12200 review hearing will be set for 07/17/2026 at 8:30 a.m.

Clerk to give notice.

3/3/2026 8:13 am

Superior Court of California, County of Tuolumne Consolidated Calendar Commissioner Steven Streger

Department 5 March 6, 2026 8:30 am DA Case # Date Filed

7 PR12470 Estate of Sandra Leigh Burman 05/15/2024

Augustin Eugene Burman-Alston Attorney: Lily Harris

Sandra Leigh Burman

State of California Franchise Tax
Board
Final Distribution Hearing

05/15/2024 Petition File Tracking 12/10/2024 High Density

Probate Notes are not tentative rulings. Parties and counsel are expected to appear for the hearings unless this note indicates that “no appearance is necessary.”
Unless a personal appearance is required, all participants may appear via Zoom without first securing Court permission using this link:
https://tuolumne-courts-ca-gov.zoomgov.com/j/1615813960?pwd=NTRMT0NwMDg5cnlYdzZ6VnBXWWFsUT09. [Meeting ID: 161 581 3960; Passcode: 123456].
All matters set for hearing in Department 5 are presumptively assigned to that department for all purposes. Parties retain the right under Cal. Const. art VI §21 to
decline consent to the Commissioner serving as a Judge Pro Tem. By participating in the first hearing, or electing not to attend after due notice thereof, parties are

deemed to have stipulated to the Commissioner serving as a Judge Pro Tem for the entire case. See CRC 2.816.

Hearing may begin closer to 8:50.

This is the petition to approve the proposed estate distribution. The only issue is the statutory fee basis. Between the original and reappraised DE-160, the estate was valued at $198,669.68. However, the distribution only references the real property, the $500 Chevy, the 1973 Honda worth $375, and the 1981 Honda also worth $375. There is no reference to the following assets: $1,500 (Subaru); $900 (Honda Shadow); $350 (1970 boat); $400 (1970 boat); $2,100 (1980 boat); and $7,000 (furnishings). Assuming these were gifted or abandoned (see invoices for junk hauling), they constitute a loss to the estate and cannot inflate the statutory fee basis. Counsel must recalculate the fee basis and show the math for both herself and petitioner. The balance of the petition is satisfactory to the Court except that petitioner’s request for reimbursement from the distributable net of the estate cannot include the $1,190 he paid on 02/20/2024 for the probate attorney initial fee. As the paid personal representative of the estate, he has a duty to safeguard the estate assets and he should have know not to pay an estate attorney without court permission to do so.

A proposed order reflecting the above adjustments will be required.

3/3/2026 8:13 am

Superior Court of California, County of Tuolumne Consolidated Calendar Commissioner Steven Streger

Department 5 March 6, 2026 8:30 am DA Case # Date Filed

8 CV67247 LVNV Funding LLC vs. Laura Nelsen 05/06/2025

LVNV Funding LLC Attorney: Adam Kidd

Laura Nelsen

Case Management Conference

Further- Special Request by Defendant
Defendant requested a Friday- sp

05/06/2025 Complaint File Tracking 05/12/2025 High Density

Probate Notes are not tentative rulings. Parties and counsel are expected to appear for the hearings unless this note indicates that “no appearance is necessary.”
Unless a personal appearance is required, all participants may appear via Zoom without first securing Court permission using this link:
https://tuolumne-courts-ca-gov.zoomgov.com/j/1615813960?pwd=NTRMT0NwMDg5cnlYdzZ6VnBXWWFsUT09. [Meeting ID: 161 581 3960; Passcode: 123456].
All matters set for hearing in Department 5 are presumptively assigned to that department for all purposes. Parties retain the right under Cal. Const. art VI §21 to
decline consent to the Commissioner serving as a Judge Pro Tem. By participating in the first hearing, or electing not to attend after due notice thereof, parties are
deemed to have stipulated to the Commissioner serving as a Judge Pro Tem for the entire case. See CRC 2.816.

Hearing may begin closer to 8:50.

Collections case. Answer filed. Set trial.

3/3/2026 8:13 am

Superior Court of California, County of Tuolumne Consolidated Calendar Commissioner Steven Streger

Department 5 March 6, 2026 8:30 am DA Case # Date Filed

9 PR12746 The Estate of Donald Edmund Weber 01/21/2026

Heidi Beauchene Attorney: Yet Not Entered

Donald Edmund Weber

Spousal Property Hearing

01/21/2026 Petition File Tracking 01/21/2026 LP Labels Needed

Probate Notes are not tentative rulings. Parties and counsel are expected to appear for the hearings unless this note indicates that “no appearance is
necessary.” Unless a personal appearance is required, all participants may appear via Zoom without first securing Court permission using this link:
https://tuolumne-courts-ca-gov.zoomgov.com/j/1615813960?pwd=NTRMT0NwMDg5cnlYdzZ6VnBXWWFsUT09. [Meeting ID: 161 581 3960; Passcode:
123456]. All matters set for hearing in Department 5 are presumptively assigned to that department for all purposes. Parties retain the right under Cal. Const.
art VI §21 to decline consent to the Commissioner serving as a Judge Pro Tem. By participating in the first hearing, or electing not to attend after due notice
thereof, parties are deemed to have stipulated to the Commissioner serving as a Judge Pro Tem for the entire case. See CRC 2.816.

Hearing may begin closer to 8:50.

This is the initial hearing on a sponsored spousal set-aside petition. The Probate Code provides for summary procedures
which by-pass traditional administration. Before the Court in this case is one such by-pass intended to permit a surviving
spouse to obtain a judicial determination of property to which that spouse is set aside and keep for themselves. That
by-pass is codified at Probate Code §§ 13500 and 13650, which collectively provide that “when a husband or wife dies
intestate leaving property that passes to the surviving spouse under Section 6401, the property passes to the survivor”
provided that “all or a part of the estate is property passing to the surviving spouse” – among other statutory conditions. As
noted in Estate of Bonanno (2008) 165 Cal.App.4th 7 (at 19-20): “The procedure established in Probate Code section 13650
is voluntary. It is helpful because although property may automatically pass to a surviving spouse without administration,

some title companies and others may not clear or transfer title without a court order.”

The salient facts alleged are as follows: 1. Donald and Wendy were at all relevant times married; 2. Donald and Wendy owned APN 086-010-006-000 “as community property”; 3. Donald and Wendy owned Putnam Investments Account #9366 “as community property”; 4. Donald died 10/11/2018; 5. Wendy died 12/30/2024; 6. Petitioner herein is Wendy’s personal representative by virtue of a court order in her own probate case out of Stanislaus (PR-25-000206).

By virtue of Probate Code §§ 100, 6401, 13500 and 13540, both of the above-referenced assets effectively vested in Wendy the moment Donald died intestate. There was no need for a by-pass petition, and it is presently unclear to this Court why those assets cannot be inventoried in Wendy’s estate. However, if an order confirming them to Wendy (ie, confirming Donald had no will) and moving them into Wendy’s estate is really required, there are two impediments:

First, pursuant to Probate Code §13650(a), a surviving spouse or her personal representative “may file a petition in the superior court of the county in which the estate of the deceased spouse may be administered requesting an order that administration of all or part of the estate is not necessary for the reason that all or part of the estate is property passing to the surviving spouse.” Emphasis added. A proceeding involving Donald’s estate is proper in the county in which he was domiciled. Probate Code §7051. Petitioner has not provided “the facts necessary to determine” that Donald was domiciled in Tuolumne County at the time of his passing. Probate Code §13651(a)(1).

Second, the petition must affirmatively show “the facts upon which the petitioner bases the allegation that all or a part of the estate of the deceased spouse is property passing to the surviving spouse.” Probate Code §13651(a)(3). In other words, the petition must provide evidence from which to show that the assets are presently owned 50% by Donald. There is a grant deed showing Donald owned 50% of the real property in 1983, but nothing contemporaneous. The financial account is much closer to today, so that would suffice.

3/3/2026 8:13 am

Superior Court of California, County of Tuolumne Consolidated Calendar Commissioner Steven Streger

Department 5 March 6, 2026 10:00 am DA Case # Date Filed

10 PR12553 Conservatorship of Cord Watson 11/26/2024

Benjamin Watson Attorney:Pro Per Jennifer Lothert

Elizabeth Watson Attorney: Jennifer Lothert

Cord Watson

Review Hearing - Investigator Report - PR Code 1850

11/26/2024 Petition File Tracking 03/13/2025 High Density

Based on the court investigator’s report, this Court intends to find by clear and convincing evidence the conservatee still meets the statutory requirements for a general conservatorship, that a general conservatorship remains the least restrictive alternative for the conservatee’s protection, and that the conservator continues to serve the conservatee’s best interests.

Court intends to set the annual review hearing date.

3/3/2026 8:13 am

Superior Court of California, County of Tuolumne Consolidated Calendar Commissioner Steven Streger

Department 5 March 6, 2026 10:00 am DA Case # Date Filed

11 PR12365 Conservatorship of Julian Krasner 11/27/2023

Julian Krasner Pro Per

Sheldon Krasner Attorney: Matthew Wright

Review Hearing - Investigator Report - PR Code 1850

11/27/2023 Transfer In File Tracking 03/14/2024 High Density

Based on the court investigator’s report, this Court intends to find by clear and convincing evidence the conservatee still meets the statutory requirements for a limited conservatorship, that a limited conservatorship remains the least restrictive alternative for the conservatee’s protection, and that the conservator continues to serve the conservatee’s best interests.

Court intends to set the annual review hearing date.

3/3/2026 8:13 am

Superior Court of California, County of Tuolumne Consolidated Calendar Commissioner Steven Streger

Department 5 March 6, 2026 10:00 am DA Case # Date Filed

12 PR12316 Conservatorship of Kaylie G. Bellah 08/04/2023

Steve Bellah Attorney: Jennifer Lothert

Camie Bellah Attorney: Jennifer Lothert

Kaylie Bellah Attorney: Carrie McKernan

Review Hearing - Investigator Report - PR Code 1850

08/04/2023 Petition File Tracking 07/31/2025 High Density

Based on the court investigator’s report, this Court intends to find by clear and convincing evidence the conservatee still meets the statutory requirements for a general conservatorship, that a general conservatorship remains the least restrictive alternative for the conservatee’s protection, and that the conservator continues to serve the conservatee’s best interests.

Court intends to set the annual review hearing date.

3/3/2026 8:13 am

Superior Court of California, County of Tuolumne Consolidated Calendar Commissioner Steven Streger

Department 5 March 6, 2026 10:00 am DA Case # Date Filed

13 PR11847 Guardianship of Carson James Green 09/14/2020

James Althouse Pro Per

Lisa Althouse Pro Per

Carson James Green Pro Per

Breanna Althouse Attorney: Jennifer Lothert

Review Hearing

Visitation / Court Investigator Report

06/20/2025 Termination of Guardianship File Tracking 01/14/2025 From Court Legal Document 5

This is a maternal grandparent guardianship in which the bio mother has filed for, and recently secured, visitation rights. Mother currently enjoys long weekends (Thurs @ 5:30 pm Sun @ 7:00 pm) which obviates the need for further action on her motion for visitation. Mother also has a separate motion pending to terminate the guardianship (filed 06/20/2025), which is currently stayed pending a “test run” on Mother’s visitation which is getting close to 50/50. The guardians recently filed a declaration asking to dismiss the petition to terminate and to order a new home study in light of changed circumstances adversely impacting the current visitation arrangement.

3/3/2026 8:13 am

Superior Court of California, County of Tuolumne Consolidated Calendar Commissioner Steven Streger

Department 5 March 6, 2026 10:00 am DA Case # Date Filed

14 PR11337 Guardianship of Jesse J. Bustamante 06/23/2016

Kathryn Keagy Pro Per

Jesse Lucas Bustamante

Jesus Bustamante Pro Per

Brandie D Folres Pro Per

Motion Hearing - Visitation

Grandparent

10/20/2022 Termination of Guardianship File Tracking 10/17/2024 High Density

Paternal grandmother motion for visitation rights triggered by guardian’s suggestion that she might be moving out of state to Oregon.

3/3/2026 8:13 am

Superior Court of California, County of Tuolumne Consolidated Calendar Commissioner Steven Streger

Department 5 March 6, 2026 10:00 am DA Case # Date Filed

15 PR12749 Guardianship of Joeseph Steven Ashlock 01/26/2026

Haley Ferraro Pro Per

Joeseph Steven Ashlock

Linda Ashlock Pro Per

Appoint Guardian

FURTHER tempoarary

01/26/2026 Petition File Tracking 02/24/2026 High Density

This is the continued hearing on a petition by two individuals (aunt, paternal grandmother) to establish a guardianship over one child. The procedural history of this family is anomalous.

In JV8555, bio dad was awarded sole legal and sole physical, with bio mother

receiving limited supervised visits based on substance abuse issues.

In FL19269, bio dad and bio mom stipulated to JOINT legal and physical

custody and an equal 50/50 unsupervised timeshare with mid-week exchanges.

Then, bio dad signed a consent form agreeing to hand over his parenting rights via guardianship to petitioners herein. ICWA is unclear. Bio dad says he only wants guardianship as temporary placeholder but children are not pets to be boarded when parents need a breather. Bio mom objects to guardianship and insists she can parent while facing her demons.

3/3/2026 8:13 am

Superior Court of California, County of Tuolumne Consolidated Calendar Commissioner Steven Streger

Department 5 March 6, 2026 10:00 am DA Case # Date Filed

16 PR12761 In the Matter of Nevaeh Clemens 02/24/2026

Sidney Clemens Pro Per

Nevaeh Clemens

Stephen Clemens Pro Per

Appoint Guardian - Person

Temp

02/24/2026 Petition File Tracking 02/27/2026 LP Labels Needed

This is the initial hearing on a petition by the paternal uncle and aunt to establish a guardianship over a child currently residing with her biological mother in Butte County, CA.

Per Probate Code §2201, “the proper county for the commencement of a guardianship is the county in which the proposed ward resides [or] such other county as may be in the best interests of the proposed ward.”

Per Family Code §3041: “Before making an order granting custody to a person other than a parent, over the objection of a parent, the court shall make a finding that granting custody to a parent would be detrimental to the child and that granting custody to the nonparent is required to serve the best interest of the child. Detriment to the child includes the harm of removal from a stable placement of a child with a person who has assumed, on a day-to-day basis, the role of the child's parent. A finding that parental custody would be detrimental to the child shall be supported by clear and convincing evidence.”

3/3/2026 8:13 am

Superior Court of California, County of Tuolumne Consolidated Calendar Commissioner Steven Streger

Department 5 March 6, 2026 1:30 pm DA Case # Date Filed

17 FL18265 Blake Johansen and Kaitlynn Johansen 08/30/2023

Blake Johansen Pro Per

Kaitlynn Johansen

Hearing: Other

In Chambers meeting 2 minors

08/30/2023 Petition File Tracking 03/03/2025 Archive Room

3/3/2026 8:13 am