Conservatorship of Joshua C. CA4/1

Filed 10/23/25 Conservatorship of Joshua C. CA4/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION ONE

STATE OF CALIFORNIA

Conservatorship of the Person of JOSHUA C. D085990

RIVERSIDE COUNTY PUBLIC GUARDIAN, (Super. Ct. No. PRRI2500119) Petitioner and Respondent,

v.

JOSHUA C.,

Objector and Appellant.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Riverside County, Kenneth J. Fernandez, Judge. Affirmed. Suzanne Davidson, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Objector and Appellant. Smith Law Offices, Douglas C. Smith and Julian V. Lee; Office of the County Counsel and Stacy Keffer, for Petitioner and Respondent. Joshua C. appeals the trial court’s finding he lacked capacity to refuse antipsychotic medication, claiming the record lacked substantial evidence to

support the court’s finding by clear and convincing evidence. We find this matter appropriately resolved by memorandum opinion and affirm. (See generally People v. Garcia (2002) 97 Cal.App.4th 847.) I. Over ten years ago, Joshua was diagnosed with schizophrenia. As a result of his diagnosis and “history of poor . . . medication compliance, exacerbated by a history of substance abuse,” Joshua has threatened to kill his mother, choked himself with a cable cord, assaulted police officers and a hospital staff member, and stalked his ex-girlfriend. He has also struggled to obtain housing, employment, and public benefits. In late 2024, after “reportedly be[ing] off his medications for two weeks,” Joshua experienced command auditory hallucinations telling him to cut his wrist. After finding probable cause Joshua was a danger to himself and gravely disabled as a result of his mental illness, a hospital placed him under an involuntary hold. In February 2025, Joshua was appointed a public conservator. Soon after, his conservator petitioned the court to determine Joshua’s capacity to refuse antipsychotic medication. Through counsel, Joshua opposed. In a declaration submitted with the petition, Joshua’s treating physician, Jeremy Handy, attested that Joshua refuses the antipsychotic medication “due to poor insight about having Schizophrenia, not because of [a] history of adverse reactions/side effects.” Dr. Handy declared he provided Joshua with treatment options and explained, or attempted to explain, the benefits and side effects of that treatment. According to Dr. Handy, no reasonable alternative treatment options are available. At the hearing, the trial court heard testimony from both Dr. Handy and Joshua.