Conservatorship of the Person of C.S. CA3

Filed 7/14/25 Conservatorship of the Person of C.S. CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT (Tehama) ----

Conservatorship of the Person of C.S. C102321

TEHAMA COUNTY PUBLIC GUARDIAN, as (Super. Ct. No. 24PR000115) Conservator, etc.,

Petitioner and Respondent,

v.

C.S.,

Objector and Appellant.

C.S. appeals from an order issued after a bench trial appointing a conservator over her person and estate under the Lanterman-Petris-Short Act (LPS Act) pursuant to Welfare & Institutions Code section 5000 et seq.1 C.S. contends the order should be

1 Further undesignated statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code.

1

reversed because she did not knowingly and intelligently waive her right to a jury trial. We conclude the jury trial waiver was invalid, and therefore we will reverse the order. FACTS AND PROCEEDINGS Petition and Pretrial Proceedings On August 1, 2024, the Tehama County Public Guardian (public guardian) filed a petition for appointment of temporary and permanent conservator of the person and estate of C.S. The public guardian filed a conservatorship investigation report along with the petition. The report detailed C.S.’s history of mental illness and medication noncompliance, and confirmed that “[t]here is no one, at this time, willing or able to offer [C.S] assistance to live independently in the community,” and “[t]here are no viable alternatives to conservatorship at this time.” On August 9, C.S. was served with a citation for conservatorship and the petition; the citation stated, “You have the right to a jury trial if you wish.” On August 15, the public guardian filed the citation. On August 26, a hearing was held regarding the petition; C.S. was not present. During the hearing, C.S.’s court-appointed counsel stated: “Your Honor, [C.S.] is requesting a court trial with no time waiver.” Based on counsel’s representation, the trial court set a bench trial for September 18. In a hearing held on September 3, county counsel moved to set the trial for a different time on the same date due to its expert’s limited availability. When the request was brought, C.S.’s counsel stated: “I am happy to hear what County Counsel has to say, but I cannot change -- agree to change any date to a later date without discussing it with my client,” noting that C.S. had not issued a time waiver. On September 9, at a hearing for trial resetting, C.S.’s counsel confirmed that she spoke with C.S. about the upcoming trial set for September 18: “[The matter] was continued a week for me to talk to my client. [¶] She is not waiving time. So at this time we’re not agreeable to a continuance or a motion.” Counsel added, “I believe [C.S.]