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
Picture
Picture
At the jurisdictional hearing, the sole issue before the court is whether the child is a person described by Welf & I C §300 and thus within the juvenile court's jurisdiction. See Welf & I C §355(a). A juvenile court may not make an initial adjudication of dependency for a person who is over age 18. For a juvenile court to obtain dependency jurisdiction over a minor, it is not sufficient for the dependency petition to be filed before the minor's 18th birthday; the jurisdictional hearing must occur before that date. In re David B. (2017) 12 CA5th 633.
Under §300, jurisdiction is defined by the circumstances in which a child has suffered, or is in substantial risk of suffering, serious harm. For the court to sustain the petition and make a finding of jurisdiction, the preponderance of the evidence must show that the facts alleged in the petition fall within one or more of the circumstances specified in Welf & I C §300; that is:
Legal Sufficiency of Petition Must contain Welf & I C §332 information. Before addressing its merits, the parties should evaluate whether the petition is legally sufficient on its face. The petition must contain the information required by Welf & I C §332. See §§3.4–3.6. For checklist of required allegations under §332, see §4.55. Must state facts sufficient to show child comes within §300. The petition must also state facts sufficient to show that the child comes within one of the Welf & I C §300 provisions. "Notice of the specific facts upon which the petition is based is necessary to enable the parties to properly meet the charges." In re Jeremy C. (1980) 109 CA3d 384, 397. A petition that fails to allege facts supporting a current risk of serious harm or a risk of future harm fails to state a cause of action. In re Nicholas B. (2001) 88 CA4th 1126, 1134; In re Alysha S. (1996) 51 CA4th 393, 397. If the petitioner is unable to amend the petition in a way that corrects the defect, the petition should be dismissed. In re Nicholas B., supra; In re Alysha S., supra. Challenging sufficiency of petition. A claim that a petition fails on its face to state facts showing that a child comes within one of the provisions in Welf & I C §300 is analogous to a demurrer. See In re Fred J. (1979) 89 CA3d 168, 176. It is sometimes known as an "Alysha S. motion" or a "motion akin to a demurrer." On making an Alysha S. motion, see §§3.64–3.66, 11.49–11.53.




Waiver. A party who fails to timely raise an objection to the legal sufficiency of the petition risks having waived the ability to do so. In re S. O. (2002) 103 CA4th 453, 459; In re Jessica C. (2001) 93 CA4th 1027, 1037; In re Shelley J. (1998) 68 CA4th 322. But see In re Alysha S., supra, which reached a contrary holding that a claim of insufficiency of a petition could be raised for the first time on appeal.






Proceedings Confidential Separate court session. Juvenile court proceedings must be heard at a special or separate court session. Cal Rules of Ct 5.530(a). No other matter can be heard at such a session. Anyone on trial, awaiting trial, or under accusation of a crime, other than a parent, de facto parent, or relative of the child, cannot attend this hearing, except as a witness. Welf & I C §345; Cal Rules of Ct 5.530(a). Public not admitted. Without a request by a parent to which the child consents, the public cannot be admitted to a juvenile court hearing. However, the judge does have the discretion to admit anyone deemed to have a direct and legitimate interest in the case or work of the court. Welf & I C §346; Cal Rules of Ct 5.530(e). In exercising its discretion under Welf & I C §346, the court should consider the child's best interests and "the important social values which are fostered by allowing public access to the proceedings." San Bernardino County Dep't of Pub. Soc. Servs. v Superior Court (1991) 232 CA3d 188, 207. A judge's blanket order providing that all members of the press will be admitted to dependency hearings absent an objection and a showing of detriment to the child interferes with that discretion. In re A.L. (2014) 224 CA4th 354, 360. See §2.51.
Picture
EVIDENCE AT CONTESTED HEARING


​Social worker's report. If the parent denies the petition's allegations, the court must hold a contested hearing to decide whether the allegations are true. Cal Rules of Ct 5.684(a). The petitioner (i.e., the department) has the burden of proving that the allegations of the petition are true by a preponderance of the evidence. Welf & I C §355(a). The social worker normally meets this burden of production by submitting a court report or social study that contains facts supporting the petition allegations. The social worker's court report is often the only evidence presented at the jurisdictional hearing. On admissibility of social worker's reports, see §§4.19–4.20. Other evidence. In general, the admission and exclusion of evidence is governed by the Evidence Code as it applies to civil cases. Cal Rules of Ct 5.684(b). At the hearing, any legally admissible evidence relevant to the circumstances or acts that are alleged to bring the child within the juvenile court's jurisdiction is admissible. Welf & I C §355(a).

    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