LPS MENTAL HEALTH CONSERVATORSHIP
  • LPS CONSERVATORSHIPS FOR THE GRAVELY DISABLED
    • ABOUT YOURS TRULY
  • 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
  • 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
  • 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
  • MAKING SENSE OF THE RULES OF EVIDENCE AND PRESENTING YOUR EVIDENCE AT TRIAL
  • 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
Erratic behaviour and Conservatorship of Smith (1987)
No. A033206. Court of Appeals of California,
First Appellate District, Division Five. December 8, 1986
 
 
The court finds that a propsed conservatee's erratic behaviour should not be a determinant for establishing grave disability alone. The court reminds us once more that grave disability and establishment of an LPS conservator is a deprivation of civil liberties and should be treated with a level of seriousness and restraint. Public conservatorship investigators should not immediately recommend conservatorship at the first sign of mental illness or strange behaviour.
 
 
At the time the proposed conservatee was detained awaiting a judgement that would render him gravely disabled and be appointed a conservator. The conservatee contested on several basises. The conservatee contends that the court had misapplied the law in the following ways:
 
(1) there was insufficient evidence to support the court's finding that appellant was "gravely disabled"; (2) the statute (§ 5350 et seq.) was not intended to be used to establish conservatorships for nondangerous mentally ill persons; and (3) government regulation of religious expression is improper where that activity does not pose a substantial threat to public safety, peace or order.
 
 
At the time appellant had been loitering around a church where appellant had entered the premises and disrupted the services. On occasion appellant would be arrested by law enforcement.
 
While detained at the local psychiatric hospital her attending psychiatrist evaluated her and determined that she met the criteria for gravely disabled. The doctor opined that due to her erratic behaviour stemming from her mental disorder, she was gravely disabled and unable to function in the community. Despite her erratic behaviour, he did believe that she was able to care for her needs and did not suffer any cognitive deficits. Appellant believed that she was the only one who could interpret the Bible and her actions stemmed from a belief that she must suffer. Upon appointment of conservator appellant filed a timely appeal.
 
Legal discussion
 
The clear import of the LPS Act is to use the involuntary commitment power of the state sparingly and only for those truly necessary cases where a "gravely disabled" person is incapable of providing for his basic needs either alone or with help from others. (See Conservatorship of Early, supra, 35 Cal.3d at p. 253; Report at pp. 137-138.)

 
The legislature and case law that follows clearly stipulates that the LPS intends for conservatees to be treated as liberally as possible and that any deprivation in civil liberties should be in extreme cases. Cases where the conservatee cannot by any means take care of themselves including with third party assistance. In this case petitioner stated that he believed the conservatee suffered to such a degree that she could not care of her own needs in any form. The court challenges the statement;
 
[1b] We conclude that in order to establish that a person is "gravely disabled," the evidence adduced must support an objective finding that the person, due to mental disorder, is incapacitated or rendered unable to carry out the transactions necessary for survival or otherwise provide for her basic needs of food, clothing, or shelter.


In this case the petitioner failed to take into consideration that the conservatee did spend time with a relative when not at the Church. The conservatee was indeed able to care for her own needs and did not suffer any cognitive deficits that rendered her unable to address her basic needs.
 
The court moves to the most pressing matter. In re O'Connor v. Donaldson (1975) 422 U.S. 563 [45 L. Ed. 2d 396, 95 S. Ct. 2486], the court finds that a person’s civil liberties cannot be imposed on summarily. In this case the state believed that detainment at a State hospital facility would provide the defendant a better living quality than in the private community.
 
"[I]ncarceration is rarely if ever a necessary condition for raising [their]living standards." (At p. 575 [45 L.Ed.2d at p. 407].) [3]
 

The court upheld that the state cannot detain an nondangerous individual who can care for their own needs safely. In order to commit someone there would need to be a show of proof that would demonstrate that other factor’s prevented the person from caring for their needs. Pertaining to this case, the court also found that the conservatee’s erratic behaviour and communal animosity was not reason for detaining in a state facility. The court applies the same measures to erratic behaviour so long it is not dangerous to other persons or themselves.
 
Bizarre or eccentric behavior, even if it interferes with a person's normal intercourse with society, does not rise to a level warranting conservatorship except where such behavior renders the individual helpless to fend for herself or destroys her ability to meet those basic needs for survival. Only then does the interest of the state override her individual liberty interests.

 
The next point the court addresses is a point commonly addressed during these hearing; the standard of proof required for LPS proceedings. The court reminds all that in order to initiate an LPS conservatorship, the conservatee must demonstrate that they are unable to take care of their food, clothing, or shelter. The burden of proof lies at proof beyond a reasonable doubt; the same applied to criminal proceedings. Because of the seriousness of the deprivation of rights, the court needs to apply such a high standard.
 
The court turns to the records and the evidence adduced. The appellate court acknowledges the fact that appellants behaviour was erratic and strange in which she was compelled to perform such vigils, but her behaviour was never a danger to other or hindered her ability to address her ADLs. The court reminds that even the psychiatrist testified that she was able to care for her own needs and at times does accept shelter. The court also adds that her erratic behaviour had very little to no detrimental effects on her health.
 
No evidence was adduced to show… was suffering from malnutrition, overexposure, or any other sign of poor health or neglect. Her refusal to seek shelter is not life threatening. There was uncontradicted evidence that she accepts offers of food and money from friends and relatives. Appellant evinces a strong, sincere--if unorthodox --belief in God, her religion and her place in religion. Under these circumstances, we conclude that appellant is not "gravely disabled" to justify appointment of a conservator. fn. 5
 
 
The court concludes that petitioner had failed to sustain his claim with proof beyond a reasonable doubt that appellant was indeed gravely disabled. The appellate court reversed the order appointing public conservator as conservator over the person of Smith.








Procedural Posture

Appellant proposed conservatee sought review of an order from the Superior Court of Humboldt County (California), which found appellant to be "gravely disabled" under Cal. Welf. & Inst. Code §§ 5008(h) and  5350 and appointed respondent public guardian as conservator for appellant for one year.


Overview
Respondent public guardian requested appellant proposed conservatee be declared "gravely disabled" under Cal. Welf. & Inst. Code § 5350 and to appoint respondent conservator. The trial court granted respondent's request for a period not to exceed one year. Respondent confined appellant to a facility for treatment. Appellant challenged the trial court's judgment and order of conservatorship. On appeal, the court reversed the judgment and order of conservatorship ruling that the evidence was insufficient to support a gravely disabled finding. The court held that a person suffering from a mental disorder was not "gravely disabled" under § 5350 if they were capable of carrying out the transactions necessary for survival, including providing for food, clothing or shelter, with or without the aid of others.


Outcome
The court reversed the order of conservatorship ruling that appellant proposed conservatee suffered from a mental disorder, because appellant was not "gravely disabled" when appellant was capable of providing her basic needs of food, clothing, and shelter.

 
 


    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
    • ABOUT YOURS TRULY
  • 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
  • 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
  • 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
  • MAKING SENSE OF THE RULES OF EVIDENCE AND PRESENTING YOUR EVIDENCE AT TRIAL
  • 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