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

2/24/2022

Motion in limines for lps conservatorship?

0 Comments

Read Now
 
 
TO ALL PARTIES AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD OF RECORD HEREIN:
​

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that at the contested re-establishment hearing for LPS Conservatorship, set to be heard on [date] in Department 1901 of the above listed court, counsel for relative will move this court for a motion in limine prohibiting patient’s counsel from:
1. Referring to any document or evidence documenting patient’s counsel’s statements that relative plans to disregard the doctor’s treatment recommendations and statements that relative plans to move the conservatee out of state.
2. Presenting any and all written evidence regarding patient’s counsel’s statements that relative plans to disregard the doctor’s treatment recommendations and statements that relative plans to move the conservatee out of state.
This motion in based on the California Code of Civil Procedure section 2030.030 and is further based on the attached memorandum of points and authorities, the attached declaration of relative’s name, all documents contained in the Public Conservator’s statement of facts regarding this matter, and any other evidence which may presented at this re-establishment hearing. Relative (?) has complied with the San Diego Court Local Rule ____ as set forth in the supporting declaration. (?)
This motion is based on Evidence Code section 352 and Model Rules of Prof'l Conduct R. 3.3; 4.1 (2022).
                              MOTION IN LIMINE NUMBER ONE
Parent’s Counsel (?) moves this court for an order precluding all parties from offering any testimony, statements, or documents relating to the issue of whether proposed conservator, relative’s name, intentions are to move the conservatee out of state and to refuse to follow the treating psychiatrist’s recommendations. This motion is made pursuant to Evidence Code section 352, the trial court’s inherent authority to manage litigation, and is based on the grounds that patient’s counsel, violated of Model Rules of Prof'l Conduct R. 3.3; 4.1 (2022) by knowingly presenting false evidence to the court which would be severely prejudicial and result in undue consumption of the court’s time.
This Motion is based on the attached Memorandum of Points and Authorities, the accompanying Exhibit[s] ____, and any other matters present before this court.
 
              MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
                             I. FACTUAL BACKGROUND
Relative submitted on [date] a request to the Public Conservator to investigate their suitability as private conservator also known as “successorship”. Relative was informed on [date] that the public conservator was unwilling to investigate successorship but were not told the reason behind the public conservator’s choice. Relative appealed to the Public Conservator’s superiors, [name] and [name]. The Public Conservator [supervisor name] informed relative via email and phone call on [date] that they would not be willing to investigate the matter further and denied successorship without providing grounds for denial. Relative on [date] submitted more email documentation outlining her plan to provide closer supervision of treatment for the conservatee, plans to work the doctor to find the most suitable medication for the conservatee, and possibility to work with conservatee’s case manager to find suitable placement. After relative’s second email to the public conservator, relative was contacted by conservatee’s counsel on [date] and conservatee’s counsel verbally informed relative that she believed that the relative’s plan to serve as conservator had malicious intent and entailed not following the doctor’s medical recommendations and moving the conservatee out of state where the LPS Conservatorship would be void. Relative responded to conservatee’s counsel and wrote via email on [date] that she was not intending to do such and that she would comply with the doctor’s recommendations and keep the conservatee in the IMD [name] if that was the doctor’s recommendations. Relative clarified that she would raise concerns she had but in no way would she ignore the treatment team’s advice. On [date] conservatee’s counsel responded again and informed relative that she was going to relay to the court and the Public Conservator’s office her concerns about relative plan to defy all orders and recommendations despite prior being informed about relative’s prior email communication clarifying this issue. On [date] the conservatee, name, reached out to relative and told her over the phone that he was very upset as his lawyer reached out to him via phone call and informed him that relative was planning to move him out of state and not follow his doctor’s orders. Relative once more reached out on [date] to conservatee’s counsel and informed her that she was very concerned that conservatee’s counsel planned to knowingly and willingly enter into evidence false statements, and planned to present it to the court. Relative deems that such actions would be fatal to the conservatee’s case. At the time of this filing this Motion no further correspondence has occurred regarding this issue. Relative seeks an order precluding patient’s counsel (?) from reciting or otherwise attempting to get into evidence statements regarding these allegations of anticipated misconduct.
                                                             II.  ARGUMENT
I. THIS COURT MAY EXCLUDE PREJUDICIAL OR IRRELEVANT EVIDENCE IN ADVANCE OF A CONTESTED HEARING BY WAY OF A MOTION IN LIMINE
Courts have “fundamental inherent equity, supervisory, and administrative powers, as well as inherent power to control litigation before them”. (Rutherford v. Owens- Illinois, Inc, (1997) 16 Cal.4th 953, 967.  Additionally, Evidence Code section 352 provides the court the power to exclude evidence if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the probability that its admission will (1) necessitate undue consumption of time or (2) create substantial danger of undue prejudice, of course confusing the issues, or of misleading the jury. Additionally, the court may instruct opposing counsel to avoid mentioning or referring to the evidence in question during the contested hearing.
II. COUNSEL MAY NOT INTRODUCE EVIDENCE HE OR SHE KNOWS IS FALSE
Relative asserts that she anticipated that conservatee’s counsel’s will present known false statements regarding relative’s motivation to serve as conservator. Relative asserts this would violate Model Rules of Conduct 3.3 as conservatee’s counsel has already informed conservatee, public conservator, and verbally informed relative personally that she would knowingly present demonstrably false information to the court on the day of the re-establishment hearing. Under Model Rules of Conduct 3.3, (a)(1),(3) entitled “Candor Toward the Tribunal; a lawyer shall not make a false statement of fact or law to a tribunal or fail to correct a false statement of material fact or law previously made to the tribunal by the lawyer; [or] offer evidence that the lawyer knows to be false. If a lawyer, the lawyer’s client, or a witness called by the lawyer, has offered material evidence and the lawyer comes to know of its falsity, the lawyer shall take reasonable remedial measures, including, if necessary, disclosure to the tribunal. A lawyer may refuse to offer evidence, other than the testimony of a defendant in a criminal matter, that the lawyer reasonably believes is false.
Conservatee’s counsel has been noticed [x number of times] that her assertions about relative’s statements are false and prejudicial. Relative’s emails [Exhibit X-X] demonstrate that the inconsistent statements with what conservatee’s counsel plans to present and what relative has written. Relative asserts that if counsel were to present such “evidence”, conservatee’s counsel will prejudice the case severely as these allegations (?) will hinder the conservatee’s care as the treating doctors, the court, case managers, and nursing staff will not consider any important health and psychiatric information relative wishes to relay for the conservatee’s safety. Relative has known conservatee for [x number of years] and due to her extensive personal knowledge, her advice, advisements, and assistance should not be disregarded based on false statements made by patient’s counsel. Relative believes that these false statements have already influenced the Public Conservator to forgo the directives of Welf & I C section 5350(b)(1) which mandates that a family member who is qualified to serve is preferred and that the public conservator is tasked with investigating suitability and shall deny only for good cause.
Here, should conservatee’s counsel attempt to proffer at the contested hearing, any and all evidence relating to these false statements regarding relative’s motives, the appropriate action for such evidential and ethical (?) violation would be to prevent conservatee’s counsel from introducing them at trial.   
Dated: April XX, 2022
 
 
Respectfully Submitted
_____________
Attorney for Relative
 
 
 
             DECLARATION OF ATTORNEY FOR RELATIVE
I, Attorney for relative, declare,
1.      I am attorney at law duly licensed to practice before all courts in the State of California and am an attorney with firm redacted, attorney of record for relative, parties of record in the subject litigation (?) In the Matter of the Conservatorship of Conservatee. Case No. MH XXXX:
2.      I have personal knowledge of the facts set forth in this declaration and, if called as a witness could and would competently testify to such facts under oath.
3.      This declaration is made in support of Relative’s Motion in Limine No. 1.
4.       On behalf of Relative on [date], I prepared and sent a letter to Patient’s Counsel describing the motion in limine I planned on filing on behalf of my client.
5.       For a motion in limine under these special circumstances would there need to be statements and Exhibits of a meet and confer in good faith prior to filing this motion (?)
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct.
Executed on [date] at location of firm redacted.
 
 
____________________________
Attorney Name, declarant
 
 
 

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