Skip to content
Name: Conservatorship of K.Y. (2024) 100 Cal.App.5th 985
Case #: A166825
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 1 DCA
Division: 4
Opinion Date: 03/20/2024

When requesting an extension of time in an appeal from an order establishing an Lanterman-Petris-Short (LPS) conservatorship, counsel should be mindful of the expiration date of the order and should inform the court of that date so that good cause may be evaluated properly. K.Y. appealed from an order granting the petition of the Public Guardian of Contra Costa County to establish a conservatorship for a one-year period under the LPS Act (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 5000 et seq.). Held: Appeal dismissed as moot. An LPS conservatorship appointment or reappointment order lasts for one year only. Dismissal of appeals for mootness…

View Full Summary
Name: Conservatorship of T.B. (2024) 99 Cal.App.5th 1361
Case #: A167919
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 1 DCA
Division: 2
Opinion Date: 02/27/2024

The time limit for starting conservatorship trials under amended Welfare and Institutions Code section 5350, is directory, not mandatory, and dismissal for the failure to comply with the time limit is therefore discretionary. The Public Guardian’s Office filed a petition under the LPS Act for appointment of a conservatorship for T.B. (§ 5350.) T.B. requested a trial to determine whether she was gravely disabled. Trial was originally set within the 10 days required by section 5350. T.B.’s court trial actually began 171 days later on April 24, 2023. The trial court found T.B. was gravely disabled and appointed a conservatorship…

View Full Summary
Name: Conservatorship of O.B.
Case #: S254938
Court: CA Supreme Court
District CalSup
Opinion Date: 07/27/2020

Opinion By: Chief Justice Cantil-Sakauye (unanimous decision)
When reviewing a finding made pursuant to the clear and convincing standard of proof, an appellate court must review for substantial evidence to the heightened degree of certainty required by this standard. O.B. was a young woman with autism spectrum disorder. Her mother and sister filed a petition requesting that they be appointed as limited coconservators, and O.B. objected. After a contested evidentiary hearing, the judge applied the clear and convincing evidence standard and found that a limited conservatorship was necessary. O.B. appealed, arguing in part that the evidence did not clearly…

View Full Summary
Name: Conservatorship of M.B.
Case #: A152586
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 1 DCA
Division: 5
Opinion Date: 09/12/2018

Trial court correctly applied the definition of "gravely disabled" found in Welfare and Institutions Code section 5008, subdivision (h)(1)(A) in evaluating a request to establish an LPS conservatorship for a minor. The Alameda Public Guardian petitioned the superior court to establish a conservatorship of M.B., a 16-year-old minor. After trial, the court issued an order establishing an LPS conservatorship. The minor appealed. Held: Affirmed. "A conservator of the person . . . may be appointed for a person who is gravely disabled as a result of a mental health disorder." "Gravely disabled" is a condition in which a person, as…

View Full Summary
Name: Conservatorship of S.A.
Case #: B284312
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 2 DCA
Division: 6
Opinion Date: 07/19/2018

The Public Guardian was authorized to use the conservatee's medical and psychiatric records to prove the historical course of her mental disorder. Prior to the trial to determine whether S.A.'s conservatorship under the Lanterman-Petris-Short (LPS) Act should be renewed, the Public Guardian subpoenaed S.A.'s medical records, and signed authorizations for the release of the records on S.A.'s behalf. Over S.A.'s objection, the records were introduced at trial, and the jury found S.A. gravely disabled. S.A. appealed, arguing her constitutional and statutory rights were violated when the Public Guardian signed an authorization for release of her medical records and then used…

View Full Summary
Name: Conservatorship of P.D.
Case #: B281606
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 2 DCA
Division: 6
Opinion Date: 03/29/2018

In conservatorship proceedings, it was error for special jury instructions to inform about the duration and types of treatment that may be ordered if a conservatorship is established, but the error was harmless. A jury found that P.D. was gravely disabled as a result of a mental disorder within the meaning of Welfare and Institutions Code section 5000 et seq., the Lanterman-Petris-Short (LPS) Act. P.D. appealed, arguing that two special jury instructions improperly permitted the jury to consider the duration and types of treatment that may be ordered if a conservatorship was established. Held: Affirmed. …

View Full Summary
Name: Conservatorship of Christopher B.
Case #: C077467
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 3 DCA
Opinion Date: 09/28/2015

Because trial court did not have jurisdiction to reconsider its unambiguous, but mistaken, dismissal of criminal charges, there was no criminal indictment to support a Murphy conservatorship. Following a bench trial in probate court in September 2014, the court imposed a "Murphy conservatorship" over Christopher B. This conservatorship is a renewable one-year civil commitment for criminal defendants who are otherwise incompetent to stand trial for a felony involving death, great bodily harm, or a serious threat to the physical well-being of another and who do not have the prospect of a restoration of competency. On appeal, Christopher argued…

View Full Summary
Name: People v. Cowart
Case #: A141043
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 1 DCA
Division: 2
Opinion Date: 07/17/2015

Leaving the scene of an accident in violation of Vehicle Code section 20001 is not a "felony involving death" within the meaning of Penal Code section 1601, subdivision (a) when there is no evidence that the victim's death resulted from the flight. Cowart was charged with a hit and run offense (Veh. Code, § 20001, subd. (a)) and misdemeanor vehicular manslaughter (Pen. Code, § 192, subd. (d)(2)) after he hit and fatally injured a bicyclist with his car, then left the scene of the accident. He was found incompetent to stand trial due to vascular dementia. At a hearing to…

View Full Summary
Name: People v. Rosalinda C.
Case #: A138128
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 1 DCA
Division: 1
Opinion Date: 02/24/2014

Revisions to Welfare and Institutions Code limiting recommitment of mentally ill person to six months, and requiring additional criteria be found, does not apply to those initially committed prior to June 27, 2012. Rosalinda was committed to a locked facility as a mentally retarded person who posed a danger to herself or others (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 6500). Just prior to expiration of her one-year recommitment in 2012, the District Attorney petitioned to recommit her for another year. Rosalinda objected, claiming a recent amendment to Welfare and Institutions Code section 6500, which required additional criteria be found and provided…

View Full Summary
Name: People v. Barrett
Case #: S180612
Court: CA Supreme Court
District CalSup
Opinion Date: 07/30/2012

In a commitment proceeding under Welfare and Institutions Code section 6500, neither due process nor equal protection require that the committee be personally advised and waive the right to a jury trial. Welfare and Institutions Code section 6500 provides for civil commitment and placement of a person who is "mentally retarded" and a danger to herself/himself or others. A proceeding for commitment commences under certain conditions. Designated persons may request that a petition for commitment be filed. Upon receiving allegations that a person is mentally retarded and dangerous the court must set an evidentiary hearing within a limited time. The…

View Full Summary