## Facts

- Phillip B. was a 14-year-old boy with Down syndrome and a congenital, surgically correctable heart defect.
- Phillip’s biological parents placed him in an institution on professional advice and, over time, reduced visits and involvement in his care and development.
- Phillip was later placed at a smaller residential facility for developmentally disabled children.
- Herbert and Patsy H., nonrelatives, volunteered at the facility, formed a close bond with Phillip, had him stay in their home, and became his primary emotional caregivers; Phillip called them “Mom” and “Dad” and did not recognize his biological parents.
- Phillip’s functioning and condition improved with the caretakers’ consistent attention and involvement.
- A dispute arose over medical care: professionals and the caretakers supported surgery for Phillip’s potentially fatal heart condition, while the parents refused to authorize it, characterizing it as “life-prolonging.”
- After discovering Phillip’s relationship with the caretakers, the parents barred contact and sought to move Phillip to another facility; Phillip became distraught and wanted to remain with the caretakers.
- The caretakers petitioned for guardianship of Phillip’s person and estate; after a 12-day evidentiary hearing, the trial court granted guardianship and authorized the guardians to consent to necessary medical treatment, including heart surgery.
- The parents appealed, arguing that absent a finding of conventional parental unfitness, their parental rights prevented appointment of nonparent guardians over their objection.

## Issues

1. Under California guardianship and custody standards, when may a court appoint nonparents as guardians over the objection of biological parents who are not abusive or traditionally “unfit”?
2. What findings of detriment to the child and best interests are required to justify displacement of parental custody in a contested guardianship?
3. May a child’s established psychological or de facto parent relationship with nonparents, together with the parents’ disengagement and medical decision-making, support a detriment finding?

## Decision

- The Court of Appeal affirmed the order appointing the nonparent caretakers as guardians of Phillip’s person and estate.
- The court held that parental custody rights, though fundamental, may be overridden where custody with the parents would be detrimental to the child and nonparent guardianship is required to serve the child’s best interests.
- Substantial evidence supported detriment, including the parents’ prolonged emotional and physical detachment, their failure to function as competent decision-makers on essential medical care, and the likely harm from severing Phillip’s established psychological bond with the caretakers.
- The court upheld the guardians’ authority to consent to necessary medical treatment on Phillip’s behalf.

## Legal Principles

- Parental custody rights are fundamental but not absolute; they may yield in limited, exceptional circumstances to protect a child’s welfare.
- In a contested award of custody or guardianship to a nonparent, the court must find (1) parental custody would be detrimental to the child and (2) nonparent custody is required to serve the child’s best interests.
- “Unfitness” need not be shown solely through abuse or neglect; persistent disengagement from parenting responsibilities and inability or unwillingness to make necessary decisions for the child’s health may support a detriment finding.
- A stable psychological or de facto parent-child relationship may be weighed in assessing detriment, including the harm likely to result from disrupting that bond.
- Parental medical decision-making affecting a child’s serious health needs may be considered in determining detriment and best interests in guardianship proceedings.

## Conclusion

The court affirmed nonparent guardianship because the evidence supported findings that custody with the biological parents would harm Phillip and that guardianship with the caretakers—who had become his psychological parents and would secure necessary medical care—was required to protect his best interests.


Guardianship of Phillip B., 139 Cal. App. 3d 407, 188 Cal. Rptr. 781 (Ct. App. 1st Dist. 1983)