In what circumstances will a court stay execution of an order requiring the relinquishment of custody of a minor?

In the Sanchez case, above quoted, the court had occasion to quote from the dissenting opinion in Saltonstall v. Saltonstall, 148 Cal.App.2d 109, at page 1116, 306 P.2d 492, at page 497, where it was stated and

Page 870

We are persuaded that, on the record presented, the best interests of the minor herein will be served by maintaining his status quo pending the appeal, and that in view of all the circumstances herein it was an abuse of discretion for the trial court to order the transfer of interim custody. There is yet another requirement for issuance of supersedeas which finds expression in the cases and has been referred to herein. It is said that it must appear probable that an error has been made in the award of custody. (See Faulkner v. Faulkner, 148 Cal.App.2d 102, 108, 306 P.2d 585.) But we are concerned here with the propriety of the award for interim custody only and not with the correctness of the order granting respondents' petition to withdraw their consent to the adoption of the minor by appellants, and probable error in the interim award is manifest. [58 Cal.2d 443] We have no hesitation in concluding that, for the best interests of the minor child herein, we should make an order staying execution of the order requiring that appellants relinquish custody of the minor child to respondents pending determination of the appeal from such order.