Conservatorship of C.S. CA3

Filed 11/19/25 Conservatorship of C.S. CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 and Estate of C.S. C103485

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

Petitioner and Respondent,

v.

C.S.,

Objector and Appellant.

Appellant C.S. appeals from the trial court’s order denying her request to terminate her conservatorship under the Lanterman-Petris-Short Act (LPS) (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 5000 et seq.).1 Appointed counsel for C.S. filed an opening brief pursuant to Conservatorship of Ben C. (2007) 40 Cal.4th 529 (Ben C.). The brief sets forth the facts

1 Undesignated statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code.

1

and applicable law and asks this court to review the record pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 to determine whether there are any arguable issues. We exercise our discretion to independently review the record. Finding no arguable error that would result in a disposition more favorable to C.S., we affirm the trial court’s order. BACKGROUND On March 13, 2025, C.S. requested a contested review hearing under section 5364 to assess whether her conservatorship should be terminated. At the hearing, C.S. called Dr. Heather O’Connell as a witness. Dr. O’Connell had recently evaluated C.S. and reviewed her medical records. Dr. O’Connell did not believe C.S. was ready for the conservatorship to terminate, even though her mental health diagnosis had changed. Dr. O’Connell opined that C.S.’s plan to provide for her basic needs such as food, clothing, and shelter was not viable. C.S. also testified. C.S. stated that she disagreed with her diagnosis and asked to go home. The trial court denied C.S.’s request under section 5364, concluding that she remained gravely disabled, was unable to care for herself, and was in the proper placement. C.S. timely appealed. DISCUSSION In Wende, our state Supreme Court held that, when appointed counsel in a criminal appeal submits a brief raising no specific issues or describing the appeal as frivolous, the Court of Appeal must conduct a review of the entire record. (People v. Delgadillo (2022) 14 Cal.5th 216, 221.) This procedure applies “to the first appeal as of right and is compelled by the constitutional right to counsel under the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution.” (Ibid.) In Ben C., our state high court held that neither the federal nor California constitution requires Wende procedures in an appeal from the imposition of a