Guardianship of A.H.

Case Number: E077036

Court: Cal. Ct. App.

Date Filed: 2022-09-12

---

Case Brief – Guardianship of A.H.

Court: COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Date: 2025-09-03
Case Number: E077036
Disposition: The appellate court reversed the trial court’s order dismissing petitioner‑appellant Elouise Harber’s guardianship petition and granting petitioner‑respondent Delores Williams’s petition; no costs were awarded on appeal.

Holding

The court held that the trial court abused its discretion by imposing a terminating sanction—dismissal of Harber’s petition—for a non‑strategic failure to file a required witness list, where less severe sanctions were available and the prejudice to the opposing party was minimal.

---

In a tightly contested guardianship proceeding over two minor children, the Fourth Appellate District examined the limits of a trial court’s inherent power to sanction procedural non‑compliance. Elouise Harber, the children’s maternal grandmother, filed a petition on April 18, 2019, seeking appointment as guardian. Delores Williams, asserting paternal‑grandmother status, filed a cross‑petition on May 23, 2019. Both parties proceeded under the Probate Code, not the Family Code, and each was represented—Harber by counsel, Williams pro per (“in propria persona”).

During a July 29, 2020 trial‑setting conference, the trial judge issued a pre‑trial order requiring the exchange of “lists of witnesses you intend to call, including parties,” with a February 3, 2021 deadline. The order also warned that no witness not listed could be called. Harber’s counsel missed the deadline, later admitting that Harber herself was the sole intended witness and that the attorney “mistakenly believed” the order did not apply to party witnesses. The trial court found no “mistake, inadvertence, surprise or excusable neglect” and, invoking its inherent authority, dismissed Harber’s petition and entered guardianship in Williams’s favor.

Harber appealed, raising three principal issues: (1) the pre‑trial order conflicted with Family Code § 217; (2) the dismissal violated her constitutional right to present evidence and testify; and (3) the sanction was disproportionate. The appellate court first rejected the Family Code argument, noting that § 217 governs hearings under the Family Code, whereas guardianship actions fall under Probate Code §§ 1500‑​etc., and no analogous probate provision mandates a witness‑list filing. Consequently, the order did not conflict with statutory law.

Turning to the right to present evidence, the court acknowledged that while parties generally may testify, trial courts retain inherent power to control litigation and may exclude evidence when necessary for orderly administration. The requirement to exchange witness lists serves that interest by preventing surprise and facilitating preparation. Harber, however, had a full opportunity to comply; the failure rested with her counsel, not the party herself. The court emphasized that dismissal is a “drastic remedy” reserved for extreme or willful misconduct, citing Lyons v. Wickhorst and Stephen Slesinger, Inc. v. Walt Disney Co..

Applying a five‑factor analysis, the appellate panel found: (i) the misconduct was attorney‑driven, not client‑driven; (ii) the error was negligent, not intentional; (iii) prejudice to Williams was negligible, as she already had custody and could have been afforded a continuance; (iv) lesser sanctions—such as a continuance, monetary penalties under Code Civ. Proc. § 177.5, or contempt—were available; and (v) the trial court’s form order left no discretion, effectively mandating dismissal regardless of circumstances. The court held that the failure to exercise discretion itself constituted an abuse.

In reversing, the appellate court restored Harber’s petition to the trial court for further proceedings, underscoring that procedural defaults do not automatically merit termination when the underlying interest—here, the children’s guardianship—remains unresolved. The decision reinforces the principle that sanctions must be proportional and that trial courts must retain flexibility, especially when the only excluded testimony is the party’s own.

Referenced Statutes and Doctrines

• Probate Code §§ 1500‑​et seq. (guardianship proceedings)
• Family Code § 217 (witness‑list requirement for Family Code hearings)
• Code Civ. Proc. §§ 128(a)(4), 177.5 (court’s inherent power to sanction; monetary sanctions)
• Constitutional right to present evidence (U.S. Const. amend. VI; Cal. Const. art. I, § 13)
• Key cases: Elkins v. Superior Court (41 Cal. 4th 1337), Maricela C. v. Superior Court (66 Cal. App. 4th 1138), Lyons v. Wickhorst (42 Cal. 3d 911), Stephen Slesinger, Inc. v. Walt Disney Co. (155 Cal. App. 4th 736), Crawford v. JPMorgan Chase Bank (242 Cal. App. 4th 1265).