190 Cal.App.3d 50
Conservatorship of Isaac O., 190 Cal. App. 3d 50, 235 Cal. Rptr. 133 (Ct. App. 1987)
This case demonstrates that the omission of the conservatorship investigation report to the conservatee does not deprive the court of its jurisdiction over the conservatee. The appellate court opined that other factors such as strength of the doctor's testimony, providing the petition and citation for conservatorship to the conservatee, and providing time for counsel to prepare a defense and gather the necessary evidence all determine whether a court is divested of its personal jurisdiction.
It should be noted that this LPS Conservatorship is over a minor a small detail that should be noted but does not influence the outcome of the case.
Proposed conservatee was nine years of age when the public conservator filed for temporary conservatorship of his person. The county filed a declaration of service, notice of hearing, petition for LPS Conservatorship, and CIR and provided copies to conservatee’s counsel. The proof of service was filed with the court and provided to conservatee’s relatives. Conservatee was not provided personal copies of the court investigation report CIR but was provided a copy of the notice of hearing and petition for LPS Conservatorship. Conservatee’s counsel tried to have the petition dismissed for lack of jurisdiction given that the conservatee was deprived of due process right to notice and personal service of the CIR. Additionally, the court did not believe that the conservatee possessed the ability to understand the nature of a jury trial waiver, they opined that conservatee’s counsel could waive jury trial on his behalf.
Conservatee’s counsel filed a timely notice of appeal appealing the finding of grave disability and appointment of LPS Conservator.
The appellate court relies on in re Conservatorship of Ivey in making its first assertion about the matter of whether it was prejudicial to not provide the CIR in the personal service.
The appellate court noted that conservatee’s counsel before the hearing had time to prepare the documents and present them to the conservatee in an age appropriate manner. Counsel
Reviewed the contents of the CIR with the conservatee and what the least restrictive placement ensured. The conservatee expressed consent with placement in State hospital. Appellate court notes the following from in re. Conservatorship of Ivey, supra, 186 Cal.App.3d 1559, 1566, 231 Cal.Rptr. 376:
“... based on trial counsel's assumed competence we are satisfied that Ivey's [Isaac's] lawyer fully communicated with her [him] about these entire proceedings including the contents of the investigation report. Lacking any hint to the contrary, there is no reason to reverse an order that was made in a fair hearing.”
Appellate court noted from this prior case that even if the CIR was not provided to the conservatee, counsel’s review of the contents of the petition and the CIR were enough to mark the proceeding as a “fair hearing”.
The other primary assertion by conservatee citing that his counsel’s entering of waiver of jury trial on his behalf was prejudicial error was not upheld by the appellate court. Appellate court refers to in re Maldonado, supra, 173 Cal.App.3d 144, 148, 218 Cal.Rptr. 796 in which the court found that counsel waiver of jury trial copacetic and on point with:
An attorney and counselor shall have authority:
1. To bind his client in any of the steps of an action or proceeding by his agreement filed with the Clerk, or entered upon the minutes of the Court, and not otherwise;
Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 283 (West)
This appellate court applies the Maldonado logic to Isaac O’s contention as well. There is no error. Although there is no formal indication on the available record, the interactions between Isaac and his counsel may have involved some discussion of jury trial and counsel was unable to elicit a meaningful response in regards to whether conservatee wanted a waiver of jury trial. The only note that the appellate court was that the trial court tried to and was unsuccessful in obtaining a jury trial waiver from the conservatee so counsel entered one on his behalf. The parents were also present. Based on this, it could be assumed that the parents would perhaps have some form of involvement if they believed that their son would want a jury trial.
On April 23, 1986, the trial court attempted to elicit from Isaac a waiver of his right to jury trial. Determining the minor did not understand the proceedings, a waiver of jury trial was accepted from counsel on behalf of Isaac
Conservatee’s final assertion that there was not enough evidence in the testimony and CIR to establish LPS Conservatorship and grave disability beyond a reasonable doubt. This is a standard assertion many conservatees make but many are not sustained. The court finds that the evidence provided by the doctor evidenced many specific evidences of psychiatric decompensation, specific diagnosis, ample time treating the conservatee, poor prognosis, and the necessary nexus between these and current grave disability.
Conservatee contends that the psychiatrist’s testimony constituted hearsay and could not serve as the basis for judgement. However, the appellate court refers to in re Conservatorship of Torres (1986) 180 Cal.App.3d 1159, 1163, 226 Cal.Rptr. 142
A psychiatrist is permitted to testify on a person's mental capacities and can rely on hearsay including statements made by the patient or by third persons
Thus the LPS Conservatorship was appropriately established. The appellate court opined that the trial court and counsel were within their scope in regards to waiver of jury trial. Although the conservatee was not provided the CIR in error, this error was harmless as counsel was given an extra day to prepare for the case and review the CIR with the conservatee. Finally, despite any mistakes, the doctor’s admissible and substantial testimony demonstrates clear mental decompensation and the nexus to gravely disability beyond a reasonable doubt.
The appellate court upheld the trial courts findings.
190 Cal.App.3d 50
Court of Appeal, Fourth District, Division 1, California.
CONSERVATORSHIP OF the Person of ISAAC O.
SAN DIEGO COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES, Petitioner and Respondent,
v.
ISAAC O., Objector and Appellant.
Feb. 23, 1987.
Synopsis
Counselor in mental health for county petitioned Superior Court for appointment of conservator for nine-year-old child. The Superior Court, San Diego County, Jack R. Levitt, J., determined that child was severely disabled and appointed public conservator, ordering child to be placed at state hospital as least restrictive placement available. Child appealed. The Court of Appeal, Todd, J., held that: (1) error in failing to transmit conservatorship investigation report to child personally did not deprive court of jurisdiction; (2) verification of petition by mental health counselor, rather than counselor's superior, did not deprive Superior Court of jurisdiction; (3) testimony of psychiatrist concerning condition of child was admissible; and (4) evidence was sufficient to support court's findings.
Judgment affirmed.
Conservatorship of Isaac O., 190 Cal. App. 3d 50, 235 Cal. Rptr. 133 (Ct. App. 1987)
Conservatorship of Isaac O., 190 Cal. App. 3d 50, 235 Cal. Rptr. 133 (Ct. App. 1987)
This case demonstrates that the omission of the conservatorship investigation report to the conservatee does not deprive the court of its jurisdiction over the conservatee. The appellate court opined that other factors such as strength of the doctor's testimony, providing the petition and citation for conservatorship to the conservatee, and providing time for counsel to prepare a defense and gather the necessary evidence all determine whether a court is divested of its personal jurisdiction.
It should be noted that this LPS Conservatorship is over a minor a small detail that should be noted but does not influence the outcome of the case.
Proposed conservatee was nine years of age when the public conservator filed for temporary conservatorship of his person. The county filed a declaration of service, notice of hearing, petition for LPS Conservatorship, and CIR and provided copies to conservatee’s counsel. The proof of service was filed with the court and provided to conservatee’s relatives. Conservatee was not provided personal copies of the court investigation report CIR but was provided a copy of the notice of hearing and petition for LPS Conservatorship. Conservatee’s counsel tried to have the petition dismissed for lack of jurisdiction given that the conservatee was deprived of due process right to notice and personal service of the CIR. Additionally, the court did not believe that the conservatee possessed the ability to understand the nature of a jury trial waiver, they opined that conservatee’s counsel could waive jury trial on his behalf.
Conservatee’s counsel filed a timely notice of appeal appealing the finding of grave disability and appointment of LPS Conservator.
The appellate court relies on in re Conservatorship of Ivey in making its first assertion about the matter of whether it was prejudicial to not provide the CIR in the personal service.
The appellate court noted that conservatee’s counsel before the hearing had time to prepare the documents and present them to the conservatee in an age appropriate manner. Counsel
Reviewed the contents of the CIR with the conservatee and what the least restrictive placement ensured. The conservatee expressed consent with placement in State hospital. Appellate court notes the following from in re. Conservatorship of Ivey, supra, 186 Cal.App.3d 1559, 1566, 231 Cal.Rptr. 376:
“... based on trial counsel's assumed competence we are satisfied that Ivey's [Isaac's] lawyer fully communicated with her [him] about these entire proceedings including the contents of the investigation report. Lacking any hint to the contrary, there is no reason to reverse an order that was made in a fair hearing.”
Appellate court noted from this prior case that even if the CIR was not provided to the conservatee, counsel’s review of the contents of the petition and the CIR were enough to mark the proceeding as a “fair hearing”.
The other primary assertion by conservatee citing that his counsel’s entering of waiver of jury trial on his behalf was prejudicial error was not upheld by the appellate court. Appellate court refers to in re Maldonado, supra, 173 Cal.App.3d 144, 148, 218 Cal.Rptr. 796 in which the court found that counsel waiver of jury trial copacetic and on point with:
An attorney and counselor shall have authority:
1. To bind his client in any of the steps of an action or proceeding by his agreement filed with the Clerk, or entered upon the minutes of the Court, and not otherwise;
Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 283 (West)
This appellate court applies the Maldonado logic to Isaac O’s contention as well. There is no error. Although there is no formal indication on the available record, the interactions between Isaac and his counsel may have involved some discussion of jury trial and counsel was unable to elicit a meaningful response in regards to whether conservatee wanted a waiver of jury trial. The only note that the appellate court was that the trial court tried to and was unsuccessful in obtaining a jury trial waiver from the conservatee so counsel entered one on his behalf. The parents were also present. Based on this, it could be assumed that the parents would perhaps have some form of involvement if they believed that their son would want a jury trial.
On April 23, 1986, the trial court attempted to elicit from Isaac a waiver of his right to jury trial. Determining the minor did not understand the proceedings, a waiver of jury trial was accepted from counsel on behalf of Isaac
Conservatee’s final assertion that there was not enough evidence in the testimony and CIR to establish LPS Conservatorship and grave disability beyond a reasonable doubt. This is a standard assertion many conservatees make but many are not sustained. The court finds that the evidence provided by the doctor evidenced many specific evidences of psychiatric decompensation, specific diagnosis, ample time treating the conservatee, poor prognosis, and the necessary nexus between these and current grave disability.
Conservatee contends that the psychiatrist’s testimony constituted hearsay and could not serve as the basis for judgement. However, the appellate court refers to in re Conservatorship of Torres (1986) 180 Cal.App.3d 1159, 1163, 226 Cal.Rptr. 142
A psychiatrist is permitted to testify on a person's mental capacities and can rely on hearsay including statements made by the patient or by third persons
Thus the LPS Conservatorship was appropriately established. The appellate court opined that the trial court and counsel were within their scope in regards to waiver of jury trial. Although the conservatee was not provided the CIR in error, this error was harmless as counsel was given an extra day to prepare for the case and review the CIR with the conservatee. Finally, despite any mistakes, the doctor’s admissible and substantial testimony demonstrates clear mental decompensation and the nexus to gravely disability beyond a reasonable doubt.
The appellate court upheld the trial courts findings.
190 Cal.App.3d 50
Court of Appeal, Fourth District, Division 1, California.
CONSERVATORSHIP OF the Person of ISAAC O.
SAN DIEGO COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES, Petitioner and Respondent,
v.
ISAAC O., Objector and Appellant.
Feb. 23, 1987.
Synopsis
Counselor in mental health for county petitioned Superior Court for appointment of conservator for nine-year-old child. The Superior Court, San Diego County, Jack R. Levitt, J., determined that child was severely disabled and appointed public conservator, ordering child to be placed at state hospital as least restrictive placement available. Child appealed. The Court of Appeal, Todd, J., held that: (1) error in failing to transmit conservatorship investigation report to child personally did not deprive court of jurisdiction; (2) verification of petition by mental health counselor, rather than counselor's superior, did not deprive Superior Court of jurisdiction; (3) testimony of psychiatrist concerning condition of child was admissible; and (4) evidence was sufficient to support court's findings.
Judgment affirmed.
Conservatorship of Isaac O., 190 Cal. App. 3d 50, 235 Cal. Rptr. 133 (Ct. App. 1987)