Conservatorship of Brandon S. CA5

Filed 8/11/14 Conservatorship of Brandon S. 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 of BRANDON S.

KIMBERLY H., F067126

Petitioner and Appellant, (Super. Ct. No. VPR045881)

v. OPINION BRANDON S.,

Respondent.

THE COURT* APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Tulare County. Paul A. Vortmann, Judge. Kimberly H., in pro. per., for Petitioner and Appellant. No appearance for Respondent. -ooOoo-

* Before Gomes, Acting P.J., Kane, J. and Detjen, J.

Kimberly H. (appellant) was removed as the conservator of her son, Brandon S. (conservatee). On appeal, she argues that the conservatee did not have an opportunity to advocate for himself and, therefore, the termination must be reversed. We will affirm. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY Appellant is the mother of Brandon S., a mentally disabled 30-year-old man. Appellant resides in San Diego, California. She was appointed his limited conservator in 2002. The conservatee has resided at Porterville Developmental Center (PDC) in Tulare County, California since November 2009. A court investigator expressed concern regarding appellant’s disruptive behavior at PDC, and wrote the court a letter requesting issuance of an order to show cause why appellant should not be removed as conservator. A court hearing took place on December 5, 2012, regarding the court investigator’s report. Appellant raised allegations that her son was raped 19 times while at PDC. The court took these allegations seriously and ordered the public defender to investigate the claims. A hearing was held on January 16, 2013, following the investigation. The court reviewed the investigator’s reports involving the allegations as well as appellant’s interactions with PDC staff.1 Representatives from PDC were present and prepared to testify about the allegations and appellant’s behavior. The public defender indicated that he interviewed the conservatee and reviewed other records from PDC. He concluded that the conservatee was not a victim of sexual assault, and that he was happy with his placement. Counsel for PDC stated that appellant intervened in the investigation, and pressured the conservatee to say he was forced into nonconsensual sex. He further stated that these allegations were interfering with the conservatee’s program. These statements were reflected in the investigative reports. The court concluded from the investigation and the reports that appellant’s allegations lacked merit, and any sexual activity was 1 The record on appeal did not include these reports.