Conservatorship of M.G. CA3
Filed 9/11/25 Conservatorship of M.G. CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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
(San Joaquin) ---- Conservatorship of the Person and Estate of M.G.
SAN JOAQUIN COUNTY PUBLIC HEALTH C101955 GUARDIAN, as Conservator, etc., (Super. Ct. No. STK-MH- Petitioner and Respondent, LPSC-2023-0000072)
v.
M.G.,
Objector and Appellant.
M.G. appeals from an order reappointing a conservator of her person and estate under the Lanterman-Petris-Short Act (Welf. & Inst. Code,1 § 5000 et seq.) (LPS Act). She contends there is insufficient evidence to support the trial court’s finding that she was “ ‘gravely disabled,’ ” defined in the statute as a person who, due to a mental health disorder, is “unable to provide for their basic personal needs for food, clothing, or shelter.” (§ 5008, subd. (h)(1)(A).) We affirm the trial court’s order.
1 Undesignated section references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code.
1
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND In April 2023, the trial court found M.G. to be gravely disabled and appointed a conservator of her person and estate. In March 2024, the public conservator filed a petition for reappointment. M.G. opposed the petition. M.G. waived her right to a jury trial, and the matter proceeded to a court trial in August 2024. At trial, petitioner presented two witnesses: Alexa Ponte and Dr. Timothy Miller. M.G. did not call any witnesses. Ponte testified that she is a mental health specialist employed by San Joaquin County Behavioral Health. Ponte began working with M.G. in April 2024. Ponte sees M.G. twice a month. M.G.’s current placement is in an enhanced board and care facility, which is a structured environment that is not locked. Previously, M.G. lived in a locked facility. Ponte recommended the current placement because M.G. “struggles with having lack of insight.” On one occasion, M.G. brought Ponte a bag and said, “[T]his is my bank . . . .” When M.G. opened the bag, Ponte saw “tin foil and toilet paper, and [M.G.] was trying to calculate how much money she had in the bag.” Ponte concluded M.G. “has a level of delusions that she’s still dealing with, such as believing she has all this money” that was “tinfoil and toilet paper.” M.G. “also believes that she was pregnant because her notebook had a bump in it.” Ponte expressed concern about how M.G. would manage if she were not in a structured environment, given the level of delusions with which she struggles. In a structured environment, the staff helps residents with daily activities, such as prompting them to take their medication. Ponte also encourages M.G. to take her medications. M.G. was compliant with her medications. When Ponte asked M.G. if she intended to continue medication if the conservatorship were terminated, M.G. said, “ ‘I would if I had to.’ ” When asked how she would obtain medications, M.G. said she “ ‘would just go to
More from California Court of Appeal
- People v. Hill (1998)
- In Re Autumn H. (1994)
- Nwosu v. Uba (2004)
- In Re Casey D. (1999)
- Santisas v. Goodin (1998)
- Cahill v. San Diego Gas & Electric Co. (2011)
- People v. Rivera (2015)
- People v. Barnett (1998)
- People v. Serrano (2012)
- Benach v. County of Los Angeles (2007)