Conservatorship of Das CA2/8

Filed 8/22/24 Conservatorship of Das CA2/8 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION EIGHT

Conservatorship of the Person and B330661 Estate of UMA DAS.

BAISHALI DAS, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. 21STPB00293) Petitioner and Appellant,

v.

LOS ANGELES COUNTY OFFICE OF THE PUBLIC GUARDIAN,

Objector and Respondent.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County. Lee R. Bogdanoff, Judge. Affirmed. Baishali Das, in pro. per., for Petitioner and Appellant. Dawyn R. Harrison, County Counsel, Laura Quinonez, Assistant County Counsel, and Leslie R. Smith, Principal Deputy County Counsel, for Objector and Respondent. _____________________________

Baishali Das appeals from an order denying her petition to terminate a conservatorship over her mother Uma Das.1 The petition alleged the conservator, the Los Angeles County Office of the Public Guardian (the Public Guardian), committed elder abuse, threatened to throw Uma on the street if she did not give up her family home, and threatened to dump her body somewhere with no cremation or burial. The probate court denied the petition, finding clear and convincing evidence that Uma still met the criteria for a conservatorship and that the conservatorship remains the least restrictive needed for Uma’s protection. It further found the petition’s allegations had been investigated and were not supported by the evidence. Baishali’s arguments on appeal are unclear. The majority of her brief is dedicated to discussing financial institutions’ mandatory reporting duties with respect to elder abuse. As such, Baishali has failed to meet her burden to show the probate court erred in denying her petition or that the trial court’s order was unsupported by the evidence. Accordingly, we affirm the probate court’s order. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND The Public Guardian received a referral for conservatorship from the Los Angeles County Department of Public and Social Services (DPSS). The referral stated Uma was 71 years old and had been unable to manage her affairs. The referral also stated that Uma had a daughter, but that contact had been unsuccessful.