Conservatorship of C.S. CA1/5

Filed 12/21/15 Conservatorship of C.S. CA1/5 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION FIVE

Conservatorship of the Person of C.S.

SONOMA COUNTY PUBLIC CONSERVATOR, Petitioner and Respondent, A145416 v. (Sonoma County C.S., Super. Ct. No. SPR-87786) Objector and Appellant.

C.S. appeals from an order appointing the Sonoma County Public Conservator (Conservator) as conservator of his person under the Lanterman-Petris-Short (LPS) Act. (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 5500 et seq.)1 He argues the judgment must be reversed because the evidence was insufficient to support a finding he was gravely disabled within the meaning of the LPS Act. (§ 5350.) We affirm the order establishing the conservatorship but remand the case for further proceedings to reconsider two special disabilities imposed on appellant. (§ 5357.)

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY On April 13, 2015, the Conservator filed a petition to establish an LPS conservatorship over appellant. The court issued an order establishing a temporary conservatorship, and a court trial on the petition was held on June 4, 2015.

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

1

The Conservator presented the testimony of Dr. Gary Bravo, a psychiatrist with Sonoma County Behavioral Health. Dr. Bravo had been appellant’s treating physician at the inpatient unit of the Norton Mental Health Center in 2004 and 2005, and had evaluated appellant’s condition several times over the years in conjunction with previous conservatorships and his mental health treatment while incarcerated in jail. Appellant’s diagnosis was schizoaffective disorder, bipolar type, and included symptoms of “hyperactivity, accelerated speech, loose associations, grandiose delusions . . . [and] emotional [l]ability, going from euphoric to angry.” Appellant had lived on Social Security for many years but because of his mental illness and periods of substance abuse, he was “either homeless or in the jail.” He had been arrested many times and found incompetent to stand trial. Appellant’s mental condition made him generally unable to access homeless shelters or services, and although he would sometimes stay at hotels until his money ran out, “he was so disorganized, manic, that he couldn’t—couldn’t stay in any shelter or even in a hotel.” Appellant had recently been in jail and before that had “several 5150’s.”2 Dr. Bravo testified that in his current state, appellant could not provide food, clothing and shelter for himself because he did not believe he had a mental illness. He did not recognize he had a psychiatric problem and when he was not under a conservatorship he would not engage in treatment. Even on medication, appellant’s judgment was not that good. Appellant had improved since being moved from the jail to a treatment facility and was taking his prescribed medication. Dr. Bravo believed he would not follow up on mental health treatment if he was not placed under a conservatorship. Appellant claimed to have plans to move to Reno and stay in a hotel there, but Dr. Bravo believed this was not viable. Appellant had a son in Reno and said he could stay in a board and care home where he had lived six years ago. Appellant still suffered