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 FIREARM BAN § 8103 SUBD. (F)(1)(B) V.S. 18 U.S.C. § 922 (G) (4)
  • 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

3/9/2022

Building a case for DS/GD via refusal to treat medical conditions

0 Comments

Read Now
 
The question is not whether the conservatee will incur some incidental benefit from involuntary treatment. Involuntary treatment will always confer some incidental benefit to patient as they are stabilized on medication during their hold (assuming they have been Riesed). The issue is one of substantive due process meaning to what extend can the government interfere with someone’s fundamental liberties. So currently people are holding issue with the definition of grave disability and whether it it is too “vague”. Current legal authority dictates that the statutory definition of GD is not unconstitutionally vague or overbroad. Conservatorship of Chambers (1977) 71 CA3d 277, 285; Doe v Gallinot (CD Cal 1979) 486 F Supp 983, 991, aff'd (9th Cir 1981) 657 F2d 1017.
 
For clarification on this issue of vagueness, “As a matter of due process, a law is void on its face if it is so vague that persons 'of common intelligence must necessarily guess at its meaning [27 Cal. App. 4th 575] and differ as to its application”. Such vagueness occurs when a legislature states its [intent] in terms so indefinite/vague that the line between [mentally ill]and [normal] conduct becomes a matter of guesswork”. (Tribe, American Constitutional Law (2d ed. 1988) § 12-31, p. some parts edited for clarity. Any party challenging the statute as vague must show that they are an "entrapped innocent” and to ensure justice the current law would need to be draft more precisely.
 
Now that that has been clarified, we turn to the issue where people are contending that food, clothing, or shelter is too vague. Yes we do have case law that answers the questions that lay beyond just food clothing or shelter, but because of CA’s horizontal stare decisis problem that you and I have discussed before, opinions from our intermediate appellate courts are not honored “evenly” leading to discrepancies in how the counties are treated GD patients. So, because “medical neglect” does not have controlling authority ie laws/caselaw that controls what all CA superior courts decide to do, we as lawyers must use our skills and paint a picture for the court to understand how psychosis and neglect of medical needs due to said psychosis are grounds for a finding of GD. 
 
A note: the way I would do this differs from my colleagues so I would suggest that you reach out to both of them and ask them how they would approach this question.
 
I deal mostly with the public guardian/treating hospital around the 14 day/30 day/ T-con hold periods so my write ups are more lengthy than just a note to a PERT officer out in the field. When dealing with PERT and emergency personal, a different style needs to be adopted to ensure that they read it because everyone here is on limited time.
 
So the way I may address this is:
 
PATIENT IS CURRENTLY A DANGER TO SELF AND GRAVELY DISABLED AS A RESULT OF BEING UNABLE TO CARE FOR THEIR MEDICAL NEEDS DUE TO ONGOING PSYCHOSIS
 
 
Patient is currently GD because they suffer from ___and ____and ____ symptomology and because of current, ongoing, and severe _____ symptomology, they are unable to attend to their basic medical needs of ______ and __________. The current legal authority provides for a finding of DS/GD based on inability to care for one’s medical needs.
 
In justifying extending a ____ hold, the treating clinician must be able to point to specific and articulable facts which, taken together with rational inferences from those facts, reasonably warrant his or her belief or suspicion.
Here is where I would give a paragraph of the patient’s specific psychiatric and medical history that has brought them to the hospital. I would include psych and medical history too if relevant.
 
Based on this evidence, the patient’s ongoing delusion that the govt is poisoning their food or that the medical doctor will steal and sell their organs has prevented the patient from choosing to treat their diabetes or undergo surgery for a hernia. If the patient does not receive treatment for ______ condition, then their physical health will deteriorate to the point where they need treatment in the ICU or they may fall into a coma, have a stroke, etc etc.
 
The patient’s choice to not undergo treatment for ­­­­­_____ condition is not a voluntary choice. The law provides that a person cannot be found GD if their actions are voluntary and stem from alternative lifestyle choices [citation needed]. This is not the case. From the facts listed above, the patient is operating under a false delusion that has stripped them of their rational decision making. In the absence of their ongoing psychosis, they would not be making _____ decision to refuse treatment for _____ medical condition. Additionally, this pattern of refusing medical treatment because of their psychosis is not a novel situation. On [date] and [date] patient has refused treatment for _____ citing their delusion _______ which tells them that _________. Welf & I C §5008.2. mandates that the "historical course" of the patient's mental disorder must be considered when applying the definition of mental disorder [and grave disability].
 
Additionally, if dangerousness to self cannot be assessed at this time through physical actions alone, we are asking for a reconsideration based on the following; “[t]he threat of harm to oneself may be through neglect or inability to care for oneself. In re Doremus v. Farrell (D.Neb. 1975) 407 F.Supp. 509, 515.
The threat of dangerousness to self is the same as one who may be burning themselves or cutting themselves as patient’s neglect of crucial medical conditions would lead them to the same place as someone who is harming themselves; the ICU or the ER. Patient has been neglecting/refusing to treat ____ medical condition and should this condition remain untreated, then severe medical consequences shall arise such as ________ all which would land the patient in the ER or ICU for life threatening complications.
 
 
Finally, when determining if a person should be taken into custody pursuant to subdivision (a), the individual making that determination shall apply the provisions of Section 5150.05, and shall not be limited to consideration of the danger of imminent harm.
The patient may be refusing treatment for their medical condition at this present moment, but based on ____ medical authority, if ____ condition is not treated with ____ time frame, then severe complications like ________ will occur and the patient will need immediate hospital transportation and there may not be a body present to ensure that they receive urgent ER/ambulance care. I am asking because of this reasoning that the treating clinician make a finding of current dangerousness to self and current grave disability based on all of the above.
 
Now there is some debate between me and my colleagues about how much is too much. Like I’ve discussed before, I’ve come from the dependency system, so we are always taught about statements not making it into the records and appeals being forfeited as a result. I don’t like to allow room for that so when I include a written report of the psych and medical symptomology and the legal authority that allows for involuntary treatment, I like to cover all controlling authority favourable and unfavourable because if the hospital/cert officer brings up something unfavourable to the outcome I want, there are “facts”, information, and legal reasoning as to why the bench officers or cert officer’s adverse legal authority does not apply in my case.
 
Again each case is extremely fact specific so without more facts its hard to build a complete case.
   

Share

0 Comments



Leave a Reply.

Details

    Juvenile Dependency and
    LPS Conservatorship
     

    Informal entries about both subjects. Case law, updates in legislature, common sense information, and more....

    Category: LPS & Dependency Legal News

    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 FIREARM BAN § 8103 SUBD. (F)(1)(B) V.S. 18 U.S.C. § 922 (G) (4)
  • 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