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

2/15/2022

Speculation sunday- How Could Counsel Address Contra Costa Not Allowing Private LPS Conservators

0 Comments

Read Now
 
How Could Counsel Address Contra Costa Not Allowing Private LPS Conservators

For this analysis I shall be drawing primarily from the following legal authorities: In re Harley C., 37 Cal. App. 5th 494, 249 Cal. Rptr. 3d 783 (2019); Los Angeles v Superior Court (Kennebrew) (2013) 222 CA4th 434; and People v. Karriker, 149 Cal. App. 4th 763, 57 Cal. Rptr. 3d 412 (2007)
 
To consider the issue of whether Contra Costa should be allowed to completely bar private conservators, the courts should consider the legal authority that promulgates the notion that courts can establish local rules. The trial courts possess inherent rulemaking authority as well as rulemaking authority as granted by statute. Rutherford v. Owens-Illinois, Inc. (1997) 16 Cal.4th 953, 967, 67 Cal.Rptr.2d 16, 941. Per statue(?)trial courts hold inherent power to exercise reasonable control over all proceedings to ensure the administration of justice.
 
However, the trial court’s power to establish and uphold local rules shall not be in conflict current local rules, statutes, case law, and rules of court per the Judicial Council In re Harley C., 37 Cal. App. 5th 494, 249 Cal. Rptr.
 
Currently Welf & I C §5355 states that
If the conservatorship investigation results in a recommendation for conservatorship, the recommendation shall designate the most suitable person, corporation, state or local agency or county officer, or employee designated by the county to serve as conservator.  No person, corporation, or agency shall be designated as conservator whose interests, activities, obligations or responsibilities are such as to compromise his or her or their ability to represent and safeguard the interests of the conservatee.  
 
In this case it could be argued that per the code, the only restriction provided is that no one can be appointed “whose interests, activities, obligations or responsibilities are such as to compromise his or her ability to represent and safeguard the interests of the conservatee”.
 
Additionally, Welf & I C §5350(b)(1) sets forth that
The appointment of a conservator is subject to the priority list set out in Prob C §1812, of persons who can serve as conservator, unless the conservatorship investigator recommends otherwise. A family member is preferred, if qualified to act.
 
Under Conservatorship of Walker, 206 Cal. App. 3d 1572, 254 Cal. Rptr. 552 (Ct. App. 1989), the conservatorship investigator must also investigate whether family members are willing and able to serve as conservator, even if they are unwilling to house the conservatee in their homes.
 
Given this controlling authority, it seems that the court imposing its own local rule barring private LPS Conservators entirely would fall under an abuse of its inherent rule making authority.
 
In the Harley C court, it found that in promulgating local rules the trial courts must balance the need to maintain control over the pace of litigation and the need to decide cases on their merits rather than on procedural issues. When the court finds itself in a situation when the two “needs” conflict the court ought to favour a disposition on the merits over the need for judicial efficiency.
 
 
In this hypothetical scenario, should the trial court in the absence prior litigation abuse, issue an order based on a local rule that runs contrary to the controlling authority under Welfare and Institutions Code, the failure to consider a private LPS Conservator, it is an abuse of discretion.
 
However, LPS differs from dependency litigation in that under Los Angeles v Superior Court (Kennebrew) (2013) 222 CA4th 434; Kaplan v. Superior Ct., 216 Cal. App. 3d 1354, 1356, 265 Cal. Rptr. 408, 409 (Ct. App. 1989); and People v. Karriker, 149 Cal. App. 4th 763, 57 Cal. Rptr. 3d 412 (2007), the public guardian holds the sole discretion to file for LPS Conservatorship and the decision to file for LPS Conservatorship cannot be compelled by mandamus.
The discretion to file a petition for the appointment of an LPS conservator is vested in the sole discretion of the conservatorship investigator. West's Ann.Cal.Penal Code § 1370; West's Ann.Cal.Welf. & Inst.Code § 5351 et seq.
 
 
Should the trial court initiate a judicial proceeding to compel the public guardian to act against its discretion a writ of prohibition is an appropriate remedy. In the Kaplan court, the appellate court stated that:
We shall therefore order a writ of prohibition to issue barring respondent superior court from taking any further action in the underlying proceeding to appoint a conservator, except to dismiss it. Kaplan v. Superior Ct., 216 Cal. App. 3d 1354, 1356, 265 Cal. Rptr. 408, 409 (Ct. App. 1989)
 
By extension most courts have extended this logic to all public guardian decisions. Most courts consider that the public guardian’s legal authority cannot be challenged via collateral attacks or any other motion. For example, in San Diego County, if the public conservator does not want to appoint a private conservator, there shall be no additional evidentiary hearing or contested hearing on behalf of the proposed private LPS Conservator.
 
Counsel in potentially addressing Contra Costa’s local rule could raise Los Angeles v Superior Court (Kennebrew) (2013) 222 CA4th 434 which found that although the trial court may not issue an order compelling the public guardian to perform its duties in a certain way, it may review the public guardian’s decision to not file for LPS Conservatorship to ensure it comports with the directives of Welfare and Institutions Code.
 
The trial court may review administrative agency's action to determine whether it is arbitrary, capricious, or entirely without evidentiary support, contrary to public policy, or procedurally unfair or unauthorized by law. [cite]
 
 
As mentioned earlier, Welf & I C §5355 states that
If the conservatorship investigation results in a recommendation for conservatorship, the recommendation shall designate the most suitable person, corporation, state or local agency or county officer, or employee designated by the county to serve as conservator.  No person, corporation, or agency shall be designated as conservator whose interests, activities, obligations or responsibilities are such as to compromise his or her or their ability to represent and safeguard the interests of the conservatee.  
 
 
The Karriker court does not directly answer the question of whether a public guardian's refusal to establish an LPS conservatorship might be reviewed as an abuse of discretion, so the Kennebrew opinion serves to answer this question.
 
Because Welf & I C § 5355 implies that the public guardian is to investigate all potential LPS Conservators, Contra Costa’s local rule barring appointment of any private LPS Conservators is unduly prejudicial and favours judicial expediency over deciding a case on the merits. As stated in In re Harley C., 37 Cal. App. 5th 494, 249 Cal. Rptr. 3d 783 (2019),
Court procedures [and local rules], however well-intentioned, should not be imposed at the expense of the parties' basic rights to have their matters fairly adjudicated.
 
 
 
For the above reasons, counsel could request review of the public guardian’s refusal to consider private LPS Conservators in an attempt to ensure the agency performs its official act as required by LPS provisions. Los Angeles v Superior Court (Kennebrew) (2013) 222 CA4th 434
 

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