Conservatee must be Presently Gravely Disabled

One of the biggest challenges of obtaining a conservatorship is determining if the conservatee is truly gravely disabled in the moment. Often the court will discount the conservatorship application if the conservatee is not found to be presently gravely disabled. The family will try and argue that the conservatee will become disabled later on and need assistance once more. The law sets out the guidelines so with the "goal of minimizing the risk of unjustified and needless conservatorships.” (Cons of Roulet). The court moved to conserve patients on a proof beyond a reasonable doubt that the conservatee is presently gravely disabled. This lead to the question of what constitutes present grave disability. The court argues that the threshold for conservatorship should not be is not whether the proposed conservatee needs or benefits from conservatorship, but whether the trifecta of basic needs of food, clothing, and shelter cannot be met without the imposition of a conservatorship.

In conclusion the court decided as a cumulation of Cons of Guerrero, Cons of Walker, and Cons of Benvenuto that the evidence need to consider present grave disability follows as:
•          The patient lacks insight of his or her mental illness;
•          The patient feels that he or she does not need medication;
•          The patient cannot provide for himself or herself without medication; and
•          The patient will not take medication without supervision of a conservator.
In addition, Welf & I C §5008.2, includes the historical course of the conservatee's mental health (number of hospitalizations, compliance, outpatient compliance) may be considered when deciding grave disability.