Conservatorship of Sue B. CA3

Filed 10/27/15 Conservatorship of Sue B. CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 (El Dorado) ----

Conservatorship of the Person and Estate of SUE B. C078107

ROY C., (Super. Ct. No. PP20140147)

Petitioner and Respondent,

v.

WILLIAM C.,

Objector and Appellant;

KATHERINE CAIN, as Conservator, etc.,

Respondent.

William C., adult son of conservatee Sue B., appeals from an order appointing a professional fiduciary probate conservator of the person and estate of Sue.1 On appeal,

1 To preserve the confidentiality of the conservatee, the parties are referred to by their first names.

1

he purports to raise a number of issues relative to Sue’s rights. Specifically, that as the proposed conservatee, Sue had a right to an evidentiary hearing, had to attend the hearing, had a right to legal representation, and should have her wishes honored. In addition, he also contends the presumption of competency must be overcome by clear and convincing evidence, and additional conservator powers should not be automatically granted. We find that William does not have standing to raise these claims. William also claims the trial court erred in denying his requests for an evidentiary hearing. We find on the facts of this case, William was not entitled to such a hearing. Accordingly, we affirm. BACKGROUND In September 2014, Roy C., another adult son of conservatee, filed a petition for the appointment of a probate conservator of the person and estate of Sue. (Prob. Code,2 § 1820.) The petition also sought a determination that Sue lacked capacity to consent to medical treatment, orders relating to the conservator’s powers, and order for dementia placement or treatment. The petition was supported by capacity declarations from two medical doctors and a nurse practitioner, each of whom concluded Sue has dementia. Sue filed an objection to the petition. She objected to the appointment of a conservator. But, if a conservator had to be appointed, she requested it be William. William also filed an objection to the conservatorship petition. William objected to the petition on the grounds that: (1) the medical capacity declarations did not comply with the statutory requirements; (2) an attorney had not been appointed for Sue; (3) the petition ignored Sue’s wishes to have him designated as her conservator; (4) the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs was not on notice of the proceedings; and, (5) the petition sought overly broad powers for the conservator.