Conservatorship of A.G. CA3

Filed 2/20/26 Conservatorship of A.G. CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 A.G. C103372

SAN JOAQUIN COUNTY PUBLIC (Super. Ct. No. STK-MH- CONSERVATOR, as Conservator, etc., LPSC-2025-0000001)

Petitioner and Respondent,

v.

A.G.,

Objector and Appellant.

Appellant A.G. appeals from an order appointing a conservator of his person and estate under the Lanterman-Petris-Short Act. (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 5000 et seq.) On appeal, he first argues the trial court erred by holding him in a jail after the conservatorship was established. He further contends: (1) the court erred by accepting a stipulated conservatorship order without obtaining A.G.’s express consent to the

1

disabilities imposed by that order; (2) two of the imposed disabilities should be stricken because they were not supported by substantial evidence; and (3) to the extent his challenge to the disabilities is forfeited, his trial counsel provided ineffective assistance of counsel by failing to object. We conclude that A.G.’s claim about his jail placement is moot because he has since been placed in an appropriate treatment facility, and we decline to exercise our discretion to consider the mooted claim. But we agree with A.G. that the trial court erred by imposing disabilities without following the procedures set forth in Conservatorship of Christopher A. (2006) 139 Cal.App.4th 604 (Christopher A.). Accordingly, we reverse the portion of the conservatorship order imposing disabilities on A.G. and remand the matter for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. Given our reversal of the disabilities ordered, we need not consider A.G.’s argument that two of the imposed disabilities were unsupported by substantial evidence or his alternative claim of ineffective assistance of counsel. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND On February 4, 2025, the San Joaquin County Public Conservator (Public Conservator) filed an amended petition for the appointment of a Murphy conservator for the person and estate of A.G.1 The petition alleged that: (1) on April 20, 2022, A.G. had