DecisionDepot
California legal research
All cases
26PC-0033471·shasta·Probate·Conservatorship
Hearing todayAppearance required; intended to be granted

CONSERVATORSHIP OF LINDA HARTMAN

Petition for Appointment of a Conservator of the Person and Estate

Hearing date
Aug 24, 2026
Department
44
Judge
Prevailing
N/A

Motion type

Browse all Petition rulings statewide →

Parties

RespondentLinda Hartman

Ruling

CASE NUMBER: 26PC-0033471 This matter is on calendar for hearing on a Petition for Appointment of a Conservator of the Person and Estate. The proof of service on the Notice of Hearing filed on July 7, 2026, omits the date of mailing. Therefore, the Court cannot determine if timely notice was provided to all individuals entitled to notice. The Citation has been filed with proper proof of service. Counsel has been appointed for the Conservatee. No objections have been raised. The Court has reviewed the Court Investigator’s report, filed August 3, 2026, which recommends granting the Petition.

The report states that the Conservatee will not attend the hearing. The Petition seeks authority to place the Conservatee in a secured facility; however, the Capacity Declaration does not state that a secured facility would be the least restrictive environment for the Conservatee. An appearance is necessary on today’s calendar to provide the Court with an amended proof of service with the date of mailing and to determine if there is any objection by the Public Defender’s Office. If there is no objection and an amended proof of service is provided, the Court intends on granting the Petition, without the authority to place in a secured facility.

CONSERVATORSHIP OF MILTON MILLER

Cited authorities

Extracting citations from the ruling text…
Verify against the source PDF — LLM extraction may miss or mis-normalize citations.

Looking for case law or statutes not cited here? Search published authorities

Ask about this ruling

Examples: “Why did the court rule this way?” · “What were the procedural grounds?” · “Is appearance required?”

Answers reference only this ruling's text. Not legal advice — always verify against the source PDF.

Find similar rulings

Source

Share