Limited Conservatorship Calendar

If the tentative ruling is accepted, no appearance is necessary unless otherwise indicated.  You must notify the Judicial Assistant at (707) 521-6893 if you wish to be heard in response to the tentative ruling.  Any interested party who wishes to be heard in opposition to a petition must notify all other parties of the intent to appear.  Both notifications must be completed no later than 4:00 p.m. on the court day immediately preceding the day of the hearing.

Unless notification to the probate clerk has been given as provided above, the tentative rulings shall become the rulings of the court at 1:45 p.m. on the day of the hearing. 

To Join Department 63 “Zoom” Online

• Navigate to website: https://sonomacourt-org.zoomgov.com/j/1603772262
• Enter Meeting ID: 160 377 2262
• And Password: 419097

To Join Department 63 “Zoom” By Phone:

• Call: +1 669 254 5252 US (San Jose) and enter same meeting ID and password as listed above.

Guide for Participating in Court Proceedings via Zoom for Dept 63:

• After joining the meeting and checking in with the clerk, please mute your audio when not speaking. This helps keep background noise to a minimum.
• Be mindful of background noise when your microphone is not muted. Avoid activities that could create additional noise, such as shuffling papers.
• Position your camera properly if you choose to use a web camera. Be sure it is in a stable position and focused at eye level, if possible. Make sure everything visible in the frame is appropriate for an appearance in court.
• If a confidential session becomes necessary it is incumbent on you to ensure you are able to participate from a private location so that unauthorized people cannot overhear or see the proceedings.
• Chat is enabled for the sharing of documents among participants and the court and to allow attorneys to communicate individually with each other or their clients only. No chat messages should be sent privately to the court as it would amount to an unauthorized ex parte communication. Neither should chat messages be sent to all participants unless directed by the court.
• The recording function has been disabled. Remember, the prohibition against recording court proceedings, even remote ones, remains.
• Be patient. Check in will take more time and the experience from those who have tried this before is that proceedings are a little slower generally.

1. Limited Conservatorship of Claudio J. Gonzalez Galvan
   25PR00843
   Review

Tentative Ruling: NO APPEARANCES REQUIRED. The limited conservatorship shall continue without modification.

The matter is SET on Thursday, November 9, 2028, at 3:30 p.m. in Department 63, for the biennial review and report of the court investigator.

2. Limited Conservatorship of Madison Garnet Sheridan
   26PR00805
   Appointment of Limited Conservator

Tentative Ruling: NO APPEARANCES REQUIRED. The matter is CONTINUED to Thursday, January 7, 2027, at 3:30 p.m. in Department 63, to allow additional time for the petitioners to file a Confidential Capacity Assessment and Declaration. If the capacity declaration is filed at least 30 days prior to the next hearing, the Office of the Court Investigator can begin its investigation.

3. & 4. Limited Conservatorship of Ryan Harrell
            SPR090238
            Appointment of Limited Co-Conservator
            Review and Modification of Limited Conservatorship

Tentative Ruling: NO APPEARANCES REQUIRED.   The Court first notes that the review of the limited conservatorship has been conducted.  The conservatee is presently well served by the conservatorship and it shall continue without modification.   The matter is SET on Thursday, November 9, 2028, at 3:30 p.m. in Department 63, for the biennial review and report of the court investigator.

As to the petition for appointment as limited co-conservator by Frank Harrell, the petition is DENIED.  The Court finds there is no need for a co-conservator to protect and advocate for the interests of the conservatee, that the ends of justice are not served by the appointment of a co-conservator, and that the appointment of the present petitioner as co-conservator is likely detrimental to the functioning of the existing conservatorship.  The Court does not find an evidentiary hearing is necessary to reach these conclusions in this case.

As part of their meet and confer efforts the parties were previously directed to discuss the effect of Probate Code section 2105(c)(1), which requires: “Where there are two … conservators, both must concur to exercise a power.” The Court observed that if in this case it were to appoint joint conservators who are in adversarial positions with each other, that the conservatorship will not function to benefit and protect the interests of the conservatee.  The parties were directed to answer the question whether the Court would risk creating a situation where the conservatee is without the benefit intended by the establishment of a conservatorship.  The Court noted such a situation would not be in the best interests of the conservatee.  The statement of issues by petitioner Frank Harrell does not address these issues.  Inexplicably, between the last hearing when the Court specifically called out its concerns about appointment of co-conservators hostile to each other and this hearing, petitioner Frank Harrell mailed an envelope to the current conservator addressed to “Dunnwuliar,” a puerile attempt to convey the words “I am done with you liar.”  Such conduct is indicative of animosity toward the current conservator so strong that petitioner could not put it aside even after the Court expressed concern about precisely such a dynamic. 

A recent review of the conservatorship has now been completed.  The present conservatorship is functioning as intended to the benefit of the conservatee.  The Court’s sole focus is on the welfare of the conservatee in these matters.  Despite the opportunity to address why the relief sought in the petition for appointment of a co-conservator serves the best interests of the conservatee and is necessary, petitioner has failed to articulate any basis in response to the orders of the Court.  The Court finds further proceedings unnecessary on this record. 

***End of Tentative Rulings***