Conservatorship of C.V. CA5

Filed 12/23/25 Conservatorship of C.V. 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 Person and Estate of C.V.

JOHN MAURO, as Conservator, etc. F088601

Petitioner and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. VPR050483)

v. OPINION C.V.,

Objector and Appellant.

THE COURT* APPEAL from orders of the Superior Court of Tulare County. Gary M. Johnson, Judge. Linda J. Zachritz, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Objector and Appellant. No appearance for Petitioner and Respondent. -ooOoo-

* Before Levy, Acting P. J., Franson, J. and Guerra, J.† † Judge of the Fresno Superior Court, assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to article VI, section 6 of the California Constitution.

INTRODUCTION Appellant C.V. (appellant) appeals from the Tulare County Superior Court’s orders which granted a petition for conservatorship of her person and estate filed by petitioner, the Tulare County Public Guardian (petitioner), pursuant to the Lanterman-Petris-Short (LPS) Act (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 5000 et seq.), and the court’s subsequent dismissal of the LPS conservatorship and appointment of petitioner as temporary conservator over appellant’s estate in a probate conservatorship. On appeal, appellate counsel filed a brief that summarized the facts with citations to the record, raised no issues, and asked this court to independently review the record pursuant to Conservatorship of Ben C. (2007) 40 Cal.4th 529. Appellant did not file a supplemental brief on her own behalf. We affirm. PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND On March 18, 2021, a petition was filed in Tulare County Superior Court case No. VPR050483, for appointment of petitioner as a temporary and general conservator over appellant’s person and estate. The petition alleged appellant was gravely disabled within the meaning of the LPS Act, and a hospital was the least restrictive and appropriate placement. On March 30, 2021, the trial court convened a hearing, and appellant appeared with counsel. The court appointed petitioner as temporary conservator over appellant’s person and estate, and found that appellant’s placement in a hospital was the least restrictive and most appropriate placement. Appellant’s counsel requested a contested hearing on the general conservatorship. On May 25, 2021, the trial court conducted the contested hearing on the petition for a general conservatorship. Appellant appeared via videoconference and counsel was present in court. The court found appellant was gravely disabled and in need of a conservatorship over her person and estate due to a mental disability, granted the petition, appointed petitioner as conservator, and terminated the temporary conservatorship.