Tuolumne — Probate Notes for June 05, 2026

Source: https://www.tuolumne.courts.ca.gov/system/files/general/pb_d5_06052026.pdf

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

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

1 PR12617 Estate of Breck McDowell Phelps 04/02/2025

Josiah Phelps Attorney: Tamara Polley

Breck McDowell Phelps

Final Distribution Hearing

04/02/2025 Petition File Tracking 04/02/2025 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.

This is a petition to approve the proposed distribution of this intestate estate. While there is only one heir, and only one asset to speak of, the Court notes that approximately one year ago the petitioner was to have placed $239,330.83 into an estate account. Since estate deposits are supposed to be into an interest-earning account (see Probate Code §9652; Estate of Gerber (1977) 73 Cal.App.3d 96, 111), this Court would have expected to see more than $239,330.83 on hand for distribution. Instead, there is only $226,518.97 on hand, which technically reflects a “loss” for purposes of the statutory fee basis. This Court does not intend to dwell on the minutia but is curious where roughly $16,000 wandered off to …

6/1/2026 3:08 pm

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

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

2 PR12789 Estate of Brenda Joyce Loftin 04/24/2026

Kimberly Loftin Pro Per

Brenda Joyce Loftin

Determine Succ to Real Property - Other

succession

04/24/2026 Petition File Tracking 04/24/2026 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.

This is a by-pass petition to transfer decedent’s primary residence to her three devisees by will. Although notice is technically deficient since it was not waived in the “consent to appointment” (see Para 8) and there is no proof of notice in the court file, the petition is otherwise in very good condition. All that is missing from the petition is proof that decedent actually held an ownership interest in the subject real property, which appears to have been glossed over by petitioner (but likely an easy fix).

6/1/2026 3:08 pm

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

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

3 PR12763 Estate of George Russell Morrow 03/11/2026

Susan Morrow Attorney: Anthony Johnston

George Russell Morrow

Alisha Morrow Pro Per

Letters of Administration

FURTHER

03/11/2026 Petition File Tracking 03/12/2026 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.

This is a petition to appoint a personal representative and issue Letters of Administration to manage an intestate probate estate. There is no proof of publication on file, making the petition itself not yet ripe for consideration. However, in the interim this Court has received an objection to the petition to decedent’s natural heir, claiming an equitable interest in the single asset inventoried in the estate. Objector claims that a neutral party should serve as administrator.

Although petitioner may be deemed to have waived her priority in light of her delay (see §§ 8001 and 8468), there is no other person who has petitioned for appointment. Per §8461(a), petitioner is entitled to priority in appointment so long as she is entitled to succeed to at least a part of the estate. See §8462(a). That has yet to be shown. Nevertheless, the objector contends that petitioner should be disqualified from service based on a conflict of interest. See §8502. This Court will require evidence and/or additional briefing to understand the nature of this claimed disqualification.

Objector requested time to assess options for a buy-out.

6/1/2026 3:08 pm

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

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

4 PR12788 Estate of Laurel Ellen Nelson 04/22/2026

Emery Eugene Nelson Attorney: Tamara Polley

Laurel Ellen Nelson

Letters of Administration

04/22/2026 Petition File Tracking 04/24/2026 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.

This is a petition to admit a foreign will to probate and to appoint a nominee to serve as administrator thereof. The personal representative can certainly assume the position of administrator with will annexed. The will appears to have been validly executed (§6113), but not necessarily self-proving as alleged under Para 3.f(2) because Para 9 of the will permits an inference that the testator intended for the laws of the State of Wyoming to control the legal effect of this instrument. See Probate Code §21103. In Wyoming, such instruments are self-proving only if notarized. See Wyoming Statutes §2-6-114. Since there is no notary acknowledgement with the will, direct testimony from a subscribing witness is required. See §2-6-205. In California, we refer to that as using the DE-131 form.

6/1/2026 3:08 pm

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

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

5 PR12563 Estate of Lona Mae Conley, et al. 12/17/2024

Dana Ruth Stemig Attorney: Gary Dambacher

Lona Mae Conley

Gary P Dambacher Pro Per

Terzich and Wilson Funeral Home Pro Per

Arnold B. Conley Jr. Attorney: Carrie McKernan

Final Distribution Hearing

05/01/2026 Final Distribution File Tracking 02/05/2025 From Court-Probate on Calendar

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.

This is a petition to approve the proposed distribution plan, with statutory and extraordinary fees.

Motorhome: As set forth in Paras 4 and 18, decedent held title to a motorhome. That motorhome is encumbered with a debt. A proposal was made to distribute this asset to Arnold (see Stipulation dtd 06/09/2025), but he has apparently had a change of heart before accepting the distribution. The asset was not inventoried, or appraised. As it is part of decedent’s estate, it must be liquidated or properly transferred in kind. The fact that the lender has not pursued a creditor claim in this probate proceeding is favorable to the estate so long as Arnold is not also identified as a borrower.

Extraordinary fees: As set forth in Para 22, counsel advises that he “performed extraordinary services for the Executors and the estate to defend the estate against a competing petition filed by the decedent's brother as detailed in my Declaration.” This Court is unaware of any competing petition, or that decedent had a brother. The billing summary reflects work associated with monetizing a life estate and trying to avoid a total loss on the estate’s primary asset. As set forth in CRC 7.703(c), extraordinary legal services can include “legal services in connection with the sale of property held in the estate.” However, Arnold’s life estate was set to terminate upon his “permanent voluntary vacating of the premises” which reportedly occurred after his accident in early 2025. The issue regarding who was to pay the mortgage was a red herring because the life estate was specifically contingent upon paying “use” fees (utilities, taxes, HOA, upkeep) which are separate and distinct from loan encumbrances impacting the residuary owners. When no rent is specified, none is owed. See Civil Code §§ 824, 1066, 1069. Nevertheless, some extraordinary effort was made by counsel, even if it resulted in a failed stipulated and significant loss on sale of the primary asset. Counsel has still failed to handle the motorhome, so on balance this Court concludes that $2,500 is a reasonable of fees earned to date. If more are incurred vis-à-vis the motorhome, this Court will address those in the amended petition.

6/1/2026 3:08 pm

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

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

6 PR12775 Estate of Pamela Joan Franciosa 03/23/2026

Joseph Franciosa Pro Per

Pamela Joan Franciosa

Letters of Administration

03/23/2026 Petition File Tracking 03/24/2026 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.

This is a petition to admit a will to probate, and for appointment of an executor. There is no proof of publication yet, so the hearing may be delayed on this basis alone. The will is not perfectly self-executing, but under the circumstances this Court will likely permit its admission with just one DE-131. Even though the will provides for execution without bond (see §8422(a)), petitioner is non-resident and as such may be tasked with securing a bond first (see §8571). Alternatively, if the estate consists of liquid accounts and those are deposited into a blocked, interest-earning account (see §§ 8483(a) and 9703), the bond requirement can be avoided.

Petitioner to advise regarding liquidity.

6/1/2026 3:08 pm

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

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

7 FL9963 Teresa Houston vs. Matthew C. Nugent 2000000766054 06/08/2010

Teresa Houston Attorney: Hal Channell

Matthew C Nugent

Dept. of Child Support Services Attorney: Dept. of Child
Support Services
Review Hearing - Child Support

FURTHER

06/08/2010 OSC Application File Tracking 08/13/2024 High Density

W paying $471/month with zero timeshare

6/1/2026 3:08 pm

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

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

8 PR12785 Ives Special Needs Trust 04/14/2026

Dennis D Miller Attorney: Tamara Polley

Petition Hearing - Other

Order Appointing Trustee

04/14/2026 Petition File Tracking 04/17/2026 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.

This is a petition to fill a vacancy in the office of trustee for a special needs trust. There are no individuals nominated by the settlor to serve in that capacity. Pursuant to Probate Code §15660, “if the trust instrument provides a practical method of appointing a trustee or names the person to fill the vacancy, the vacancy shall be filled as provided in the trust instrument” and if not “the vacancy may be filled by a trust company that has agreed to accept the trust on agreement of all adult beneficiaries” or “the court may, in its discretion, appoint a trustee to fill the vacancy.” When all else fails, the public guardian can be appointed as trustee if “no other qualified person is willing to act as trustee” and the public guardian consents. Probate Code §15660.5.

A trustee who presents with a potential conflict of interest is generally disqualified from appointment. See Probate Code §15642(b)(9). Petitioners here are in direct line to inherit the remaining balance of this trust, and at the same time granted “sole discretion” whether to use any of the trust assets for the benefit of the special needs recipient. See Art. II.C.3(a)(3). The trustee is further authorized to use funds to purchase real estate or benefit the settlor’s “other issue” (ie, Melanie). Since the balance of the special needs trust is potentially subject to Medi-Cal reimbursement, a trustee in line as residuary beneficiary has obvious pressures separate from caring for the special needs recipient. Given all these circumstances, this Court would prefer to see a professional fiduciary serve in the capacity as trustee. However, without knowing the amount in the special needs sub-trust, it is difficult to discern the financial benefit of a professional.

6/1/2026 3:08 pm

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

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

9 CV68015 Thomas A Nelson vs. Jancy Harper 01/21/2026

Thomas A Nelson Attorney: Yet Not Entered

Jancy Harper

Cody Hall Attorney: Yet Not Entered

OSC Hearing - Elder Abuse

Special Set to trial CMC in CV67889

01/21/2026 Petition File Tracking 01/28/2026 High Density Other Cases CV68075 CV67889

CV67889 (Nelson v. Harper, quiet title) was dismissed.

EA-TRO prosecuted via POA o granted: no contact, stay away. Moot?

6/1/2026 3:08 pm

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

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

10 CV68075 Thomas Nelson vs. William Brown 02/06/2026

Thomas Nelson Attorney: Yet Not Entered

Cody Hall Attorney: Yet Not Entered

William Brown

OSC Hearing - TRO/Elder Abuse

Special Set to trial CMC in CV67889

02/06/2026 Petition File Tracking 03/05/2026 High Density Other Cases CV68015 CV67889

CV67889 (Nelson v. Harper, quiet title) was dismissed.

EA-TRO prosecuted via POA o granted: no contact, stay away. Moot?

6/1/2026 3:08 pm

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

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

11 PR12354 Conservatorship of Annette Louise Ferreira 10/27/2023

Genevieve Reyes Pro Per

Annette Louise Ferreira

Janice G. Lopez

Simpson-Van Bokkelen Bonding Pro Per

Review Hearing - Investigator Report - PR Code 1850

FURTHER

10/27/2023 Transfer In File Tracking 05/06/2024 High Density

This is an existing limited conservatorship over the person and estate. This Court, having received and reviewed the court investigator’s annual report, anticipates finding by clear and convincing evidence that the limited conservatorship continues to be necessary and the least restrictive alternative for the conservatee’s protection.

Annual review date: ___________, 2027

6/1/2026 3:08 pm

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

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

12 PR10894 Conservatorship of Augustus Kipper 12/28/2012

Cindy Miller Attorney: Jennifer Lothert

Augustus Kipper

Review Hearing - Investigator Report - PR Code 1850

12/28/2012 Petition File Tracking 06/14/2024 High Density

Related to #16

This is an existing general conservatorship over the person. This Court, having received and reviewed the court investigator’s annual report, anticipates finding by clear and convincing evidence that the general conservatorship continues to be necessary and the least restrictive alternative for the conservatee’s protection.

Annual review date: ___________, 2027

6/1/2026 3:08 pm

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

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

13 PR11254 Conservatorship of Haley M. Merz 11/23/2015

Darlene Theresa Merz Pro Per

Haley Michelle Merz Attorney: Donald Martell

Review Hearing - Investigator Report - PR Code 1850

FURTHER

11/23/2015 Petition: Other File Tracking 11/23/2015 Petition 04/24/2024 High Density

This is an existing general conservatorship over the person. This Court, having received and reviewed the court investigator’s annual report, anticipates finding by clear and convincing evidence that the general conservatorship continues to be necessary and the least restrictive alternative for the conservatee’s protection.

Annual vs. biennial?

Review date: ___________, 2027 or 2028

6/1/2026 3:08 pm

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

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

14 PR12057 Conservatorship of Jill McClintock-Cole 02/18/2022

Tuolumne County Public Guardian Attorney: Sarah Carrillo

Jill McClintock-Cole

Review Hearing - Investigator Report - PR Code 1850

FURTHER Accounting Hearing

FURTHER 2nd simplified

02/18/2022 Petition File Tracking 02/18/2022 Petition 04/29/2024 High Density Other Cases CVL65145

Court is awaiting update on both 1850 report and accounting.

6/1/2026 3:08 pm

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

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

15 PR10681 Conservatorship of Joseph Myron LaKamp 02/03/2011

Charles M LaKamp Attorney: Matthew Wright

Marianne LaKamp Attorney: Matthew Wright

Joseph Myron LaKamp

Charles D LaKamp Attorney: Matthew Wright

Review Hearing - Investigator Report - PR Code 1850

FURTHER

02/03/2011 Petition File Tracking 04/24/2024 High Density

This is an existing general conservatorship over the person. This Court, having received and reviewed the court investigator’s annual report, anticipates finding by clear and convincing evidence that the general conservatorship continues to be necessary and the least restrictive alternative for the conservatee’s protection.

Annual vs. biennial?

Review date: ___________, 2027 or 2028

6/1/2026 3:08 pm

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

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

16 PR10683 Conservatorship of Zackery Kipper 02/08/2011

Cindy Miller Attorney: Jennifer Lothert

Zackery Kipper

Review Hearing - Investigator Report - PR Code 1850

02/08/2011 Petition File Tracking 06/25/2024 High Density

This is an existing general conservatorship over the person. This Court, having received and reviewed the court investigator’s annual report, anticipates finding by clear and convincing evidence that the general conservatorship continues to be necessary and the least restrictive alternative for the conservatee’s protection.

Annual review date: ___________, 2027

6/1/2026 3:08 pm

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

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

17 PR12782 Estate of Lynn Reed 04/06/2026

Vivian Patricia Reed Attorney: Jack Klosek

Lynn Reed

Spousal Property Hearing

04/06/2026 Petition File Tracking 04/09/2026 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.

This is a probate by-pass petition to confirm property passing to the surviving spouse. Pursuant to Probate Code §13500, “when a spouse dies intestate leaving property that passes to the surviving spouse under Section 6401, the property passes to the survivor” without the need for formal administration. Probate Code §6401 then describes three different types of property subject to potential by-pass, to wit: o Community property, 100% of which vests directly in the surviving spouse; o Quasi-CP, 100% of which vests directly in the surviving spouse; and o Separate property, 50% of which vests directly in the surviving spouse.

As set forth in the petition, APN 043-760-008/009 was acquired while decedent and petitioner were married but taken in decedent’s name alone “as his sole and separate property.” As explained by the courts in In re Brace (2020) 9 Cal.5th 903 (at 931-934), and Estate of Wall (2021) 68 Cal.App.5th 168 (at 174-175), in a proceeding involving heirs, the form of title held by decedent controls. This means that petitioner is presently entitled to only 50% of APN 043-760-008/009. Since she is seeking an order confirming 100% of APN 043-760-008/009, she is required to establish “by clear and convincing evidence” that decedent did not hold “full beneficial title.” See Evidence Code §662. Petitioner offers evidence that the loan was assumed in decedent’s name because he had better credit, but the loan and recorded title are two distinct things (which petitioner seems to conflate). Once the loan attached to the property, decedent was free to transfer by interspousal deed his interest into the community – yet he decided not to do that. Moreover, he decided not to create a will that would have made plain his alleged plan of action.

Nevertheless, since petitioner is described as a “borrower” on the refi Deed of Trust (doc 2019012334), claims that the down payment was from her own separate property source (see Para 3), and some portion of the debt presumably was paid down using community funds, it does appear as though petitioner acquired some beneficial title which would be recognized in family court. See Family Code §§ 760, 803, 2640. A supplemental declaration from petitioner clearly addressing her beneficial interest in the property will be needed. Moreover, additional effort to locate and give notice to the residual heirs is required.

6/1/2026 3:08 pm

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

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

18 PR11900 Guardianship of Allyson Dawn Solano 01/28/2021

Laura E. Young Pro Per

Harrison K.F.B. Young Pro Per

Allyson Dawn Solano

Review Hearing - Guardian Rept-Probate Code 1513.2

FURTHER - Minor's Mental Health Treatment Placement
OSC Hearing - Other

Authorization fpr placement pursuant to PC2357

01/28/2021 Petition File Tracking 01/28/2021 Petition 04/12/2024 High Density

Notice: Guardianship petitions require notice to the ward (§1460(b)(2)), which appears to have been accomplished. In light of the concerns raised at the previous hearing, notice was directed to be provided to the biological parents (§1202), but there is no proof of that having occurred.

Merits: It is generally understood that guardians have the right to subject wards to non-surgical medical treatment (§2353), but may not have the ward sterilized, admitted to a mental health facility, or subjected to experimental drugs/treatments without a specialized hearing. See §2356. For nonconsensual mental health care that does not rise to the level of involuntary institutionalism, a petition can be used but it must support with specificity and medical affidavits showing (1) the nature of the medical condition requiring treatment, (2) the recommended course, (3) the threat to the health of the ward if authorization to consent is delayed or denied, (4) the predictable or probable outcome of the recommended treatment, (5) medically available alternatives, if any, and (6) the efforts made to obtain an informed consent from the ward. See §2357(c).

Unless the ward consents, Court will be appointing minor’s counsel to assist in this evaluation.

6/1/2026 3:08 pm

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

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

19 PR10727 Guardianship of Malaki Renteria 06/07/2011

Berta Renteria

Pete Renteria

Malaki Renteria

Erika C Olsen Pro Per

Rudy Renteria Pro Per

Jerry Katz

Belinda Katz

Review Hearing - Guardian Rept-Probate Code 1513.2

FURTHER - report filed?

12/06/2016 Petition: Other File Tracking 04/24/2024 High Density

This is an established guardianship over the person of a minor age 16. Based on the updated GC-251, the minor is doing quite well. Guardians have intimated a desire to adopt. Based on the report, Court can see that the guardianship remains necessary/convenient and will set the annual review date.

Annual review date: ________________, 2027

(Mid-June to align with 18th bday is 2028)

6/1/2026 3:08 pm

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

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

20 FL18879 Austin Frederick and Nariah Frederick 12/16/2024

Austin Frederick Attorney: Hal Channell

Nariah Frederick Attorney: Mark Smith

Court Trial: Short Cause

Pre-Trial Conference

12/16/2024 Complaint File Tracking 09/02/2025 High Density Other Cases FL18856

Court is awaiting/anticipating report from court investigator as part of Father’s proposed step-up request.

6/1/2026 3:08 pm