LPS

Name: Conservatorship of K.L.
Case #: B351841
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 2 DCA
Division: 6
Opinion Date: 08/25/2026

It was reversible error to grant an LPS conservatorship without advising K.L. of the right to a jury trial.  K.L. objected to the filing of a petition for LPS conservatorship and requested a court trial. Neither the court nor counsel advised K.L. of the right to a jury trial and there was no explicit waiver of such right. A written citation simply stating K.L. had the right to a jury trial was inadequate. The totality of the circumstances did not affirmatively demonstrate a knowing and intelligent waiver.

The full opinion is on the court’s website here:

View Full Summary
Name: Conservatorship of E.A.
Case #: S287241
Court: CA Supreme Court
Opinion Date: 07/23/2026

One year delay of conservatorship trial was a denial of due process, but the error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. A trial on the issue of grave disability must commence within ten days of its demand. Here, the jury trial was delayed almost a year. Applying the four-factor test in Barker v. Wingo (1972) 407 U.S. 514, the California Supreme Court found that E.A. was denied due process. However, the denial was harmless because there was no reasonable doubt that the trial court would have found E.A. gravely disabled had the delay not occurred.

The full opinion is available on…

View Full Summary
Name: Esparza v. Superior Court
Case #: E085807
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 4 DCA
Division: 2
Opinion Date: 02/05/2026

Incompetence to testify under Evidence Code section 701 may not be presumed from a grave disability finding or involuntary medication order under the LPS Act. Because the standard for competence to testify is distinct from the standard for determining grave disability, one cannot serve as a substitute for the other. The Court grants defendant’s writ of mandate and directs the superior court to deny the Public Guardian’s motion to quash the subpoena for L.S. and to determine L.S.’s competence under the standard set out in EC 701.

The full opinion is available on the court’s website here: 

View Full Summary
Name: Conservatorship of A.B.
Case #: A173111
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 1 DCA
Division: 2
Opinion Date: 02/04/2026

Substantial evidence supported renewing appellant’s LPS conservatorship and involuntary medication order. Individuals who lack insight into their mental illness and need for medication may be "presently" gravely disabled, where it is shown they will not voluntarily continue to do what is necessary to maintain the ability to provide for food, shelter and clothing. The same lack of insight and noncompliance history that supported that defendant was gravely disabled also constituted clear and convincing evidence he was incompetent to give or withhold informed consent to medication.

The full summary is available on the court’s website here:

View Full Summary
Name: Conservatorship of A.H.
Case #: A169588
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 1 DCA
Division: 5
Opinion Date: 09/08/2025

The Court of Appeal agrees with the holding in Conservatorship of T.B. that WIC 5350(d)(2) does not require a court to dismiss an LPS conservatorship petition when the trial has not started by the statutory deadline.  However, the Court reverses the LPS conservatorship in this case, finding the 10-month delay prior to trial violated due process under the Barker v. Wingo test.  Significant to this finding were the facts that A.H. had never before been found gravely disabled and that none of the delay was attributable to him.

The full opinion is available on the court’s website here:

View Full Summary
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
Citation: 9 Cal.5th 989
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
Citation: 27 Cal.App.5th 98
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
Citation: 25 Cal.App.5th 438
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