Columnist Sandra Thompson: Court’s guardianship order confusing

Sandra Thompson

Sunday, Aug. 22, 1999 | 9:34 a.m.

Sandra Thompson is vice president/associate editor of the Las Vegas Sun. She can be reached at 259-4025 or e-mail at thompson@lasvegassun.com.

A NEVADA Supreme Court order could have far-reaching effects on guardianship cases in the state.

Last month the high court vacated a 1996 Family Court order appointing a Las Vegas woman as guardian of her now 6-year-old granddaughter. The high court remanded the case back to Family Court and ordered a new guardianship hearing within 60 days.

But one Family Court official says the order is confusing and could affect procedures on how the court appoints guardians.

The guardianship case began in 1995 when Jackie Castellani says her ex-daughter-in-law, Melissa, asked her to care for her little girl. Castellani's son, Robert, also gave his consent. He has been in an Arizona prison.

The girl's maternal grandmother, Phyllis Karr of Kingman, Ariz., disputes that. Saying Melissa gave temporary custody of the little girl to her, Karr appealed the Family Court decision. Karr has adopted Melissa's other child, who is the girl's half-brother.

Since the outset of the case, there has been a venomous trail of accusations of sexual and physical abuse, drug use and drug dealing; character assassination and vicious name-calling. The voluminous Family Court file contains statements from witnesses on both sides that are diametrically opposed.

In 1996, then Judge Terrance Marren appointed Castellani as guardian of her granddaughter. Two months later, Karr filed a motion to dissolve the guardianship. Karr said the guardianship order was not valid because Castellani failed to name her as a relative on the original petition as required by state statute. Karr also said Melissa had withdrawn her consent to Castellani's guardianship.

Saying it had emergency jurisdiction over the girl, Family Court ordered an FMAC (Family and Mediation Assessment Center) evaluation. FMAC found that the girl would be better off living with Castellani. An arbitrator also found that Castellani "clearly is the more reasonable party in this case. (Karr) is unable to separate her own interests" from the child's best interests. After a five-day evidentiary hearing, Family Court affirmed Castellani's appointment as guardian.

Karr then appealed to the Supreme Court. Last month the court issued an order of remand, concluding that Family Court lacked the authority to grant Castellani's petition for guardianship because Karr had not been named as a relative on the initial petition.

And that's what confuses Guardianship Commissioner Jennifer Henry. According to state statutes, no notice of other relatives is required for the initial petition if both parents give their consent to the guardianship.

Castellani, at the time of the initial petition, had the consent of the child's parents. So Karr was not entitled to any notice.

The high court order also seems contradictory. In a footnote, the justices say there can be no appeal from the initial guardianship order. Yet the Family Court order the Supreme Court vacated appears to be based on that.

Henry says Family Court paid "a lot of attention" to the guardianship case. Karr also had ample opportunity to present her side at the evidentiary hearing.

The problem with the Supreme Court order stems from the guardianship statutes themselves, Henry says.

"They're a hodgepodge of changes made by the Legislature over the years," she says. "They also contain contradictions."

During the last legislative session, Henry was a member of a committee that tried to propose legislation to reconcile the contradictions and differences in the statutes. But the proposal got waylaid in the Legislature, and no action was taken.

An interim committee of the Legislature needs to review the guardianship statutes and propose ways to clean them up at the next session. The Supreme Court can't be interpreting them one way, and Family Court the other. That could ultimately affect every guardianship case in the system.

Citing the Supreme Court order, Karr refuses to return her granddaughter to Castellani, with whom the girl has been living for four years. The girl was visiting Karr in Arizona when she was notified of the order.

In the meantime, a 6-year-old girl is caught in the cross-hairs of two sniping families. She deserves to live in a happy, wholesome environment -- not a war zone.