Conservatees rights

Conservatorship of Baber (1984) 153 Cal.App.3d 542 The Fourth District Court of Appeal held that a proposed conservatee may not refuse to testify in his or her own conservatorship trial (i.e., Fifth Amendment privilege against self incrimination not applicable). The Baber court also held that the doctrine of double jeopardy is not applicable in conservatorship proceedings.


Conservatorship of Mitchell (1981) 114 Cal.App.3d 606 The Second District Court of Appeal held that proposed conservatees do not have a right to a warning of the privilege against self incrimination prior to psychiatric examinations.

I have a question about this... So if a conservatee is not allowed to refuse to testify or denied the right of warning about self incrimination, then does this not place the conservatee at a disadvantage? To begin the conservatee is usually unaware of the courtroom dynamics and how the laws are structured. Secondly, the conservatee does not know explicitly what the judge is looking for during a hearing so the conservatee may make a statement that harms their case. Even though they have a public defender, the public defender may often fail to inform the conservatee of all their rights or look over their case file carefully. Unfavourable evidence may be presented forcing the conservatee to address those facts without proper preparation. This another reason for why there should be a push for having better less overworked public defenders for LPS conservatorship cases. Like juvenile court there are around 1500 conservatees who all need public defenders and only three or so public defenders that handle LPS hearings. That averages around 400 clients per attorney. Give or take some for those who are managed by fiduciaries or family. Even the best counsel cannot proper give each case attention with that many clients. Which brings us back to the conservatee needing to do a lot of their own work and not knowing what to say and what not to say. See how the circle comes around again. It's vicious cycle that is common with most government agencies.

It is up to us to establish that LPS conservatees are entitled to proper counsel. It is even enumerated in the W&I 300 et cetra codes for dependency cases. Why not LPS?