Thank you both!
IAAL, so, at least for CA, and likely other states, in-state relatives WILL likely be given preference over out-of-state? I thought that was likely the case.
MY RESPONSE: It's difficult to describe, but out-of-State relatives versus in-State relatives do not necessarily stand on unequal ground. The State will still makes it's final determination based upon the "best interests" standard; however, all things being equal, and with California's reluctance to divest itself of jurisdiction over the child, the scales could very well tip in favor of the in-State relatives. But, the court becomes very "picky" even if everything "appears" to be equal. E.g., it could very well come down to the issue if you had a speeding ticket 15 years ago! (exceedingly rare, but you get my point, which is that California REALLY wants to maintain jurisdiction over it's child citizen).
If there are two or more equally qualified candidates IN-STATE, will estate planning parental preference play any role at all? OR if both parents specifically EXCLUDE an apparently qualified candidate for their own reasons, will that bear any weight if there are other qualified parties available?
MY RESPONSE: No, "estate planning" plays no roll. A dead pair of parents may have specified that "Uncle Jim shall not be considered by the court as a suitable Guardian for little Jimmy" has no weight. Doing do so is an attempt to divest the court of its jurisdiction to decide "the best interests" of the child. In other words, and without reference to any "parole evidence" (outside sources, writings or influence), the court will decide who gets little Jimmy - - after everyone in the family who wants guardianship is investigated. Everybody's "hat" gets "thrown into the arena", and the only deciding factor by the court would be that parental custody would be detrimental to the child.
IAAL