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

4/16/2022

LEGAL AUTHORITY UNDER GANDOLFO AND AZZARELLA AS FOUNDATION FOR DENYING WRITS POST P -CON.

0 Comments

Read Now
 
LEGAL AUTHORITY PER GANDOLFO AND AZZARELLA AS FOUNDATION FOR DENYING WRITS POST P -CON.
 
The two cases that our counsel relies on when they discuss denying writs after the P-con hearing are In re Gandolfo, 36 Cal. 3d 889, 686 P.2d 669 (1984); In re Azzarella, 207 Cal.App.3d 1240, 254 Cal. Rptr. 922 (Cal. Ct. App. 1989). Again, This is an ongoing issue as Disability Rights California and Jewish Family Services tells patients that they can file for a writ post P-con establishment but when the conservatees request it, their attorneys say no and verbal “fights” ensue. 

Per CJER benchbook,
Habeas relief is not ordinarily available to challenge status as a conservatee, placement, or the conservator’s powers; the hearings built into the LPS Act will generally be adequate for resolving these questions. In re Gandolfo (1984) 36 C3d 889, 899 n5, 206 CR 149. Habeas relief, however, might be appropriate if the conservatee is illegally deprived of liberty, or the statutory review mechanisms are not working properly. 36 C3d at 898.
 
 
However, if we turn to the actual language of In re Gandolfo it first cites that unreasonable denial of [certain] freedoms essential to welfare of a conservatee under the Lanterman-Petris-Short Act might be proper subject of inquiry on habeas corpus. West's Ann.Cal.Welf. & Inst.Code § 5000 et seq. A conservator may limit a conservatee’s activities in a reasonable manner, for their own benefit, but cannot, without good reason, deny such freedom as is essential to her welfare thus begging the question of whether LPS Conservatees may be allowed to petition for writ of habeas corpus.
 
Some courts argue that an LPS Conservator is not arbitrarily confining or limiting the freedom of the conservatee upon his own initiative or own benefit. The conservator is acting per the instructions of the mental health court that assumed jurisdiction over the conservatee, and the court has given the conservator such limited instructions after a full hearing (with due process) and the court had decided that such limitations are the proper course of conduct and in the best interests of the conservatee.
 
 
Additionally, aside from the non-punitive nature of LPS proceedings, the LPS Act, has established several safeguards following the initial appointment of a LPS conservator. The code provides procedures for conservatees to challenge the validity and conditions of their conservatorships:

  • The conservatee is entitled to a rehearing on the issue of whether he or she is gravely disabled and in need of the conservatorship. Welf & I C §5364.
  • At any time, a conservatee may petition the court for a hearing to contest the rights denied under Welf & I C §5357 or the powers granted to the conservator under Welf & I C §5358. Welf & I C §5358.3.
  • Conservatorships under the LPS Act terminate automatically after one year, at the end of which conservators must petition for reappointment with supporting medical evidence. Welf & I C § 5361
  • On rehearing, a conservatee bears a lower burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that he or she is no longer gravely disabled. Baber v Superior Court (Hill) (1980) 113 CA3d 955, 965.
 
Based on this, Gandolfo held that habeas corpus is not a proper remedy to review errors which could be raised on appeal or by other appropriate remedies [such as the ones listed above].
 
Additionally courts could cite to this opinion and state that because the “precise degree of restriction appropriate to a patient may change from day to day or week to week” and changing the code to allow habeas corpus would only invite a flood of cases which would wreak havoc on the “continuing jurisdiction” of the mental health courts.
 
Now in a dissenting opinion, Bird J cites several contentions where writ of habeas corpus would be warranted. First there is some editorialization, “similarly situated persons are permitted unrestricted resort to simple and effective habeas corpus procedures … but LPS conservatees are required to use burdensome and infrequent proceedings in the conservatorship court to challenge the restrictiveness of their confinement. The great writ of habeas corpus should not be so limited”. 

Now first as in criminal courts, LPS conservatees would be entitled to habeas corpus relief if “unreasonable consequences should ensue” because of the limitations of the statutory review mechanisms. This would namely be a situation where the hospital conditions are so severe that it endangers the health and safety of a conservatee (e.g., overcrowding, physical abuse, lack of medical treatment) or which deprive a conservatee of fundamental rights (e.g., restrictions on visiting, or receipt of mail, or religious freedom). These are generally outside of the purview of a status review hearing or a re establishment hearing so a writ would allow a conservatee to address those issues rapidly.
 
  • Habeas corpus relief available under Pen.Code, § 1473 for improper or illegal hospitalization. 
 
Outside of dangerous conditions, the dissenting opinion also addresses that a person suffering from grave disability due to a mental disorder is more likely to experience rapid improvement under treatment than a person with a developmental disability which by definition is “expected to continue, indefinitely”.
 
He also notes that other instances where habeas corpus is allowed, the defendant’s alternative legal remedies were not limited by time restrictions on the frequency allowed per year. Browne v. Superior Court, supra, 16 Cal.2d at p. 601, 107 P.2d 1. This he alleges is unique to LPS Conservatorship. The dissenting opinion also lays out colloquially that LPS Conservatees suffer from mental illness and because most lay people have considerable difficulty in understanding and exercising their rights to petition a court for habeas corpus relief, the simplest of procedures may present an insurmountable challenge to a person with severe mental illness. Doe v. Gallinot (9th Cir.1981) 657 F.2d 1017, 1023. It appears that in the dissenting opinion there may be a future push to make habeas corpus relief more informal as LPS Conservatees should be aligned with developmentally disabled adults who currently may initiate habeas corpus proceedings by making a simple request for release to a hospital staff member as a nonverbal indication of desire to leave is treated as a request for release and appropriate forms filled out.
  • This may already be the case as citing to In re Azzarella, 207 Cal.App.3d 1240, 254 Cal. Rptr. 922 (Cal. Ct. App. 1989): “In the petition, the petitioner need do no more than allege that he is being detained. In the return and at the evidentiary hearing, the facility (County) must bear the burden of justifying the detention”.

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