Conservatorship of Clara P. CA5

Filed 8/29/13 Conservatorship of Clara P. CA5

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

Conservatorship of the Estate and Person of CLARA P.

MANUEL JIMENEZ, as Public Conservator, F065812 etc., (Super. Ct. No. P26560) Petitioner and Respondent,

v. OPINION CLARA P.,

Objector and Appellant.

THE COURT* APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Merced County. Brian L. McCabe, Judge. Rachel Lederman, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Objector and Appellant. James N. Fincher, County Counsel, David A. Olsen, Deputy County Counsel, for Petitioner and Respondent. -ooOoo-

* Before Gomes, Acting P.J., Kane, J. and Detjen, J.

Appellant, Clara P., challenges an order reappointing respondent Merced County Public Conservator (Public Conservator) as conservator of her person and estate under the Lanterman-Petris-Short Act (LPS). (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 5000 et seq.)1 Appellant contends (1) insufficient evidence supports the finding that she suffers from the sort of “grave disability” required for an LPS conservatorship (§ 5350); and (2) the trial court erred in restricting her from possessing firearms, holding a driver’s license, entering into contracts, entering into transactions over $50, and refusing or consenting to medical treatment. We affirm the order reappointing the Public Conservator and imposing the special disabilities set forth above. FACTUAL BACKGROUND Physician Declarations Evidence submitted included two form declarations executed by Isabel Manuel, M.D. and Edward Benton, M.D. In her declaration, Dr. Manuel stated she had “determined that [appellant] is gravely disabled within the meaning of [section] 5008 (h), as a result of a mental disorder.” She gave as the reasons for this determination the following: “[Appellant] is delusional. Paranoid. Believes she still has an apartment. Has no viable plan for self-care.” In his declaration, Dr. Benton stated he had made the same determination and gave the following reasons: “Due to residual symptoms of schizophrenia she is unable to formulate a viable plan to provide for her basic needs.” In their declarations, each physician, for the same reasons given to support the opinion that appellant was gravely disabled, also opined that appellant should be prohibited from possessing a firearm, is not able to give informed consent to both