LPS MENTAL HEALTH CONSERVATORSHIP

LPS conservatorship
and
​juvenile dependency updates

  • LPS CONSERVATORSHIPS FOR THE GRAVELY DISABLED
    • LPS Conservatorship Court Overview >
      • Public Conservator >
        • Los Angeles Public Guardian
        • CONSERVATORSHIP INVESTIGATION REPORT
        • CAREER >
          • Continuing Education
          • Public Conservator County Numbers '16
          • San Diego Public Conservator '19
        • LPS Conservatorship for Dependent Parents and Minors
      • WHY ARE LPS CONSERVATORSHIP AND PROBATE CONSERVATORSHIPS DIFFERENT
      • Court of Appeals >
        • In re Ben C- Wende Brief no issue writ
      • Trial Court Transcript
      • Conservatorship Legal Documents
      • INITIAL INVOLUNTARY PROCEEDINGS >
        • Grave Disability >
          • Present Grave Disability
        • Venue
        • Conservator's Bond
        • When the Conservatee Goes AWOL
        • Involuntary Commitment
        • Conservatorship Factors
        • Riese Hearing >
          • Riese Hearing
        • Supplemental Security Income/ SSI >
          • Applying for SSI
          • Documents for SSI
          • Process and Appeal
          • Award Letter
          • Rep Payee
          • SSI Amounts 2018/2019
  • LPS Conservatorship Case Law
    • THE ABSOLUTE STATE OF THE COURT OF APPEALS
    • Conservatorship of Isaac O- court report omission and jurisdiction
    • Disparate Treatment- Conservatorship of E.B
    • Conservatorship of KW- hearsay and jury instructions
    • Peremptory Challenges and Conservatorship of Gordon
    • Conservatorship of Sorenson privacy rights and LPS matters
    • Imposition of special disabilities- Conservatorship of Walker
    • Continuing Jurisdiction/Jury Instruction and Conservatorship of McKeown
    • Hearsay and conservatorship of Manton
    • Conservatorship of the Person of S.A.
    • Writ of Habeas Corpus burden of proof
    • Conservatorship of Roulet- burden of proof
    • Special disabilities and due process- Conservatorship of K.G and Donna H.
    • Conservatorship of Davis and Third party assistance
    • Marsden hearings/ due process Conservatorship of David
    • Conservatorship of Torres and admissibility
    • Jury Instruction and Conservatorship of Law
    • Conservatorship of George H- jury instruction
    • Public Conservator's Exclusive Power to Initiate LPS Conservatorship Kaplan v. Superior Court
    • Constitutionality of LPS conservatorship- Conservatorship of Delay
    • Investigation report- Conservatorship of Ivey
    • Conservatorship of Jesse G
    • Grave Disability Standard and Jury trial notice Conservatorship of Benvenuto
    • Conservatorship of Kennebrew vs Conservatorship of Karriker
    • Jury Trial Delays - Conservatorship of Joanne R.
    • Conservatorship of Hofferber- criminal incompetence and LPS
    • "Discretionary abuse" Conservatorship of G.H.
    • In re Elizabeth R- LPS Conserved Parent with a concurrent dependency case
    • Conservatorship of C.O. - Waiver of Jury Trial
    • Conservatorship of Smith and strange behaviour
    • Jury Trials- ​Conservatorship of Jose B
    • Conservatorship of Baber and Double jeopardy and third party evidence >
      • WIP- Conservatorship of Tedesco
      • Conservatorship of Symington (1989)
      • Effective Counsel
      • Faretta and Marsden
      • Exceptions: Third Party Evidence
      • Exclusionary Rule WIP
      • Fifth Amendment Rights
  • LIFETIME PROHIBITOR WELF & INST CODE § 8103 SUBD. (F)(1)(B) 18 U.S.C. § 922 (G) (4)
    • CA MHRS >
      • Armed and Prohibited Person System
    • National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS)
    • Registration
  • For LPS Conservatees
    • RIGHT TO APPEAR IN COURT
    • JUDICIAL REVIEW >
      • WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS
    • NOTICE
    • MEDICATION
    • PLAN OF CARE IF DISCHARGED
    • RIGHT TO COUNSEL
  • BUILDING A STRONG CASE FOR CONSERVATORSHIP
    • POWERS OF CONSERVATOR >
      • Placement Powers
      • Medication powers
    • WHY ONLY THE PUBLIC CONSERVATOR IS ALLOWED TO FILE FOR LPS CONSERVATORSHIP
    • SERVING AS CONSERVATOR
    • DSM V DIAGNOSIS LIMITS
    • CONSERVATEE INTERVIEW
    • HISTORY OF DECOMPENSATION AND LACK OF INSIGHT
    • WRAPPING IT ALL TOGETHER AND CREATING THE NEXUS BETWEEN SYMPTOMS, HISTORY, COMPLIANCE, THIRD PARTY ASSISTANCE TO PROOF OF CURRENT GRAVE DISABILITY BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT
  • JUVENILE DEPENDENCY
    • FAST TRACK DEPENDENCY
    • DEPENDENCY APPEALS
    • DETENTION
    • JURISDICTION DISPOSITION (JURIS/DISPO)
    • §366.26 Hearing: Selection and Implementation
    • 730 Evaluators
    • Case Plan
  • New Updates
    • Right to Choose

4/15/2022

Discovery and dependency

0 Comments

Read Now
 
In re William M.W. (2019) 43 Cal.App.5th 573
Discovery and Juvenile Dependency Proceedings
 
 
Discovery is a frequently overlooked aspect of dependency work because everyone receives the social worker's report before the detention and the jurisdictional hearing and may not have time to adequately consider what witnesses will testify to at these hearings. Generally, the evidence in the report is focused on supporting the information that will support a finding of dependency. The information in the social worker's report is generally a summary of other people's statements (Sanchez issues) and it may not be entirely accurate as the social worker may have mis-represented any information or did not understand the context of the statement.
 
 
On filing the petition, the petitioner must promptly make any police report or other report accessible for inspection and copying by the parent and their counsel. Cal Rules of Ct 5.546(b). The petitioner must also disclose any information or evidence that is favorable to the parent. Cal Rules of Ct 5.546(c). Presumably this also falls under Model Rules of Conduct 3.3.
 
California Rules of Court 5.546 states that discovery should be liberally construed in favor of informal disclosures, absent a showing that privilege or other good cause exists to not disclose. Discovery must be completed in a timely manner to avoid unnecessary delays.
 
A note: A juvenile court may adapt “local” rules that compel disclosure of witness lists, despite the work product privilege when the moving party shows that it would expedite a hearing, “facilitate court business, and fulfill more effectively the duty imposed on it”. In re Jeanette H. (1990) 225 CA3d 25, 34.
 
If discovery is not provided immediately as required by Cal Rules of Ct 5.546(b)–(c), a party can request the materials or move for disclosure if the request is refused on privilege grounds (?).
 
Applying the Civil Discovery Act to dependency proceedings.
 
 
In re William M.W. (2019) 43 Cal.App.5th 573
The juvenile court is not mandated to order discovery at no cost for parents in dependency proceedings but it holds the discretion to do so when an indigent parent’s may be prejudiced by the financial barrier.
 
Both parents appeal from the juvenile court’s refusal to order the department to deliver requested discovery electronically and waive all costs in advance of a contested review hearing. Parent’s counsel filed a joint motion to compel discovery. They moved to compel the juvenile court to order that the department provide copies of discovery to both parents at no cost. Additionally both parents sent memos to the department and asked that the discovery be either faxed, provided on a flash drive, or printed. The department refused to comply citing it had fulfilled its duty by making discovery available when it notified parent’s counsel that discovery would be ready for review and once counsel identified the documents they wanted duplicated, the department would provide copies at a rate of $.10 per page.
 
Parents’ counsel was notified that they would be allowed to [presumably come in] and take pictures of the documents or copy them using their own materials without charge. The department contended that any order compelling it free of charge to parents was foreclosed by Welf & I C because no explicit statute authorizes such an order and it would violate separation of powers principles.
 
On a hearing regarding this discovery matter, parents’ counsel asserted that free discovery was required citing constitutional principles of due process and equal protection for indigent parents. The department maintained that its obligation does not extend to copying and production of discoverable materials; just making them available for parent’s counsel.
 
The trial court denied the discovery motion and opined that it was denying the request because it believed the court would “be acting in excess of its authority given the current state of the statutory law”.
 
The court also noted that the department had already made the discovery available, but parents’ counsel chose to decline to go in person and copy them.
Parents filed their timely notice of appeals.
 
 
The court of appeal provides it opinion in which it reversed on the following grounds:
 
Per California Rule of Court 5.546
“Dependency proceedings in the juvenile court are special proceedings with their own set of rules, governed, in general, by the Welfare and Institutions Code.” (In re Chantal S. (1996) 13 Cal.4th 196, 200.) Prehearing discovery is primarily regulated in the juvenile court by rule 5.546.3 The rule states it is to be “liberally construed in favor of informal disclosures, subject to the right of a party to show privilege or other good cause not to disclose specific material or information”.
 
 
Additionally within these rules of court, are several provisions which authorize the juvenile court to regulate the discovery process as needed. The parents assert that the department’s open file policies run contrary to juvenile dependency discovery procedures as it is burdensome and unreasonable for a parent’s counsel to go in person and thus at odds with the department’s duty to disclose discovery under rule 5.546. Additionally, they clarify that “disclosure” within the scope of rule 5.546 should mean the production and delivery of discoverable material at no cost. However, the appellate court found that the department made a better argument.
 
Rules have the force of dependency statute behind them but a court can pomulagate them to the extent that carrying out the rule shall not be inconsistent with legislative intents and constitutional provisions.
 
 
In so far that the administration of these rules comport with existing statutory authority, the rules must be construed so as to implement the purposes of the juvenile court law. Rule 5.501(c)(2).
 
 
The words in a statute given their ordinary and usual meaning should be also construed in their statutory context. In this construed in the over arching scheme of dependency law.
 
If the plain, commonsense meaning of a statute’s words is unambiguous, the plain meaning takes precedent. In determining what the plain meaning is of given words in a statute the meaning must be construed in a context relating to the same over bearing subject matter and should be construed to best harmonize with the import of the dependency act. For words with more than one interpretation a court may consider various “extrinsic aids, including the purpose of the statute, the evils to be remedied, the legislative history, public policy, and the statutory scheme encompassing the statute”. Catlin v. Superior Court (2011) 51 Cal.4th 300, 304.
 
Now applying this logic to Rule 5.546 the plain and ordinary meaning of the word disclose is “to open up,” “expose to view,” “to make known,” “to reveal in words,” or to “divulge”. Drawing from criminal discovery statute that construes “disclose” to mean affording a defendant an opportunity to examine, inspect, or copy the discoverable items.
 
 
This appellate court found that there was no reason to construe disclose any differently nor was there a need to interpret Local Rule 5.506(a)’s use of the same word as meaning a different level of disclosure.
 
Rule 5.546’s wording indicates that they intended that disclosure was not synonymous with document production. The rule expressly permits the department to either “deliver” a report or make them “accessible for inspection and copying”. (Rule 5.546(b).) Drawing from the wording of Rule 5.546, “disclosure” under the rule indicates a broader meaning that includes the option of making materials available for review or providing paper or electronic copies.

Share

0 Comments



Leave a Reply.

Details

    Juvenile Dependency and
    LPS Conservatorship
     

    "giving a solution to a very niche problem you're having"

    Category: LPS & Dependency Legal News

    January 2025
    December 2024
    November 2024
    July 2024
    June 2024
    May 2024
    April 2024
    March 2024
    December 2023
    November 2023
    September 2023
    August 2023
    July 2023
    June 2023
    April 2023
    March 2023
    February 2023
    December 2022
    November 2022
    October 2022
    September 2022
    August 2022
    July 2022
    May 2022
    April 2022
    March 2022
    February 2022
    January 2022
    December 2021
    November 2021
    October 2021
    September 2021
    August 2021
    July 2021
    May 2021
    April 2021
    March 2021
    January 2021
    December 2020
    November 2019
    August 2019
    July 2019
    June 2019
    April 2019
    March 2019
    February 2019
    January 2019
    December 2018
    November 2018
    October 2018
    September 2018
    August 2018

    Questions or need more information?

    Leave phone or email for contact/ check spam folder for response
Enter

Los Angeles Office of the Public Guardian 
510 S Vermont Ave, 14th Floor 
Los Angeles, California 90020 
Phone: LPS (213) 974-0527
(213) 974- 0407
Los Angeles Mental Health Court 
5925 Hollywood Blvd 
Los Angeles, California 90028 
Fax: (442) 247-3972


San Diego Central Courthouse
1100 Union St, Dept 1902
​LPS Hearings Tuesday/Thursday 9am
San Diego, California 92101 
Phone: (619) 844-2700



San Diego
Office of the Public Conservator

5560 Overland Ave Ste 130
San Diego, California 92123
Phone: (858) 694-3500 ext 2
© 2017 LPS Conserved   ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.
  • LPS CONSERVATORSHIPS FOR THE GRAVELY DISABLED
    • LPS Conservatorship Court Overview >
      • Public Conservator >
        • Los Angeles Public Guardian
        • CONSERVATORSHIP INVESTIGATION REPORT
        • CAREER >
          • Continuing Education
          • Public Conservator County Numbers '16
          • San Diego Public Conservator '19
        • LPS Conservatorship for Dependent Parents and Minors
      • WHY ARE LPS CONSERVATORSHIP AND PROBATE CONSERVATORSHIPS DIFFERENT
      • Court of Appeals >
        • In re Ben C- Wende Brief no issue writ
      • Trial Court Transcript
      • Conservatorship Legal Documents
      • INITIAL INVOLUNTARY PROCEEDINGS >
        • Grave Disability >
          • Present Grave Disability
        • Venue
        • Conservator's Bond
        • When the Conservatee Goes AWOL
        • Involuntary Commitment
        • Conservatorship Factors
        • Riese Hearing >
          • Riese Hearing
        • Supplemental Security Income/ SSI >
          • Applying for SSI
          • Documents for SSI
          • Process and Appeal
          • Award Letter
          • Rep Payee
          • SSI Amounts 2018/2019
  • LPS Conservatorship Case Law
    • THE ABSOLUTE STATE OF THE COURT OF APPEALS
    • Conservatorship of Isaac O- court report omission and jurisdiction
    • Disparate Treatment- Conservatorship of E.B
    • Conservatorship of KW- hearsay and jury instructions
    • Peremptory Challenges and Conservatorship of Gordon
    • Conservatorship of Sorenson privacy rights and LPS matters
    • Imposition of special disabilities- Conservatorship of Walker
    • Continuing Jurisdiction/Jury Instruction and Conservatorship of McKeown
    • Hearsay and conservatorship of Manton
    • Conservatorship of the Person of S.A.
    • Writ of Habeas Corpus burden of proof
    • Conservatorship of Roulet- burden of proof
    • Special disabilities and due process- Conservatorship of K.G and Donna H.
    • Conservatorship of Davis and Third party assistance
    • Marsden hearings/ due process Conservatorship of David
    • Conservatorship of Torres and admissibility
    • Jury Instruction and Conservatorship of Law
    • Conservatorship of George H- jury instruction
    • Public Conservator's Exclusive Power to Initiate LPS Conservatorship Kaplan v. Superior Court
    • Constitutionality of LPS conservatorship- Conservatorship of Delay
    • Investigation report- Conservatorship of Ivey
    • Conservatorship of Jesse G
    • Grave Disability Standard and Jury trial notice Conservatorship of Benvenuto
    • Conservatorship of Kennebrew vs Conservatorship of Karriker
    • Jury Trial Delays - Conservatorship of Joanne R.
    • Conservatorship of Hofferber- criminal incompetence and LPS
    • "Discretionary abuse" Conservatorship of G.H.
    • In re Elizabeth R- LPS Conserved Parent with a concurrent dependency case
    • Conservatorship of C.O. - Waiver of Jury Trial
    • Conservatorship of Smith and strange behaviour
    • Jury Trials- ​Conservatorship of Jose B
    • Conservatorship of Baber and Double jeopardy and third party evidence >
      • WIP- Conservatorship of Tedesco
      • Conservatorship of Symington (1989)
      • Effective Counsel
      • Faretta and Marsden
      • Exceptions: Third Party Evidence
      • Exclusionary Rule WIP
      • Fifth Amendment Rights
  • LIFETIME PROHIBITOR WELF & INST CODE § 8103 SUBD. (F)(1)(B) 18 U.S.C. § 922 (G) (4)
    • CA MHRS >
      • Armed and Prohibited Person System
    • National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS)
    • Registration
  • For LPS Conservatees
    • RIGHT TO APPEAR IN COURT
    • JUDICIAL REVIEW >
      • WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS
    • NOTICE
    • MEDICATION
    • PLAN OF CARE IF DISCHARGED
    • RIGHT TO COUNSEL
  • BUILDING A STRONG CASE FOR CONSERVATORSHIP
    • POWERS OF CONSERVATOR >
      • Placement Powers
      • Medication powers
    • WHY ONLY THE PUBLIC CONSERVATOR IS ALLOWED TO FILE FOR LPS CONSERVATORSHIP
    • SERVING AS CONSERVATOR
    • DSM V DIAGNOSIS LIMITS
    • CONSERVATEE INTERVIEW
    • HISTORY OF DECOMPENSATION AND LACK OF INSIGHT
    • WRAPPING IT ALL TOGETHER AND CREATING THE NEXUS BETWEEN SYMPTOMS, HISTORY, COMPLIANCE, THIRD PARTY ASSISTANCE TO PROOF OF CURRENT GRAVE DISABILITY BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT
  • JUVENILE DEPENDENCY
    • FAST TRACK DEPENDENCY
    • DEPENDENCY APPEALS
    • DETENTION
    • JURISDICTION DISPOSITION (JURIS/DISPO)
    • §366.26 Hearing: Selection and Implementation
    • 730 Evaluators
    • Case Plan
  • New Updates
    • Right to Choose