Conservatorship of Davis CA2/7

Filed 4/19/16 Conservatorship of Davis CA2/7 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION SEVEN

Conservatorship of the Person and Estate of B265052 HELEN DAVIS. (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. BP159733) LAURACK D. BRAY,

Petitioner and Appellant,

v.

DIANNE JACKSON,

Objector and Respondent.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, David J. Cowan, Judge. Affirmed. Laurack D. Bray, in pro. per., for Petitioner and Appellant. Dianne Jackson, in pro. per., for Objector and Respondent.

_________________________________

Appellant Laurack Bray and his sister, Respondent Dianne Jackson, filed competing petitions for conservatorship for their 93-year-old mother, Helen Davis. The probate court, after appointing counsel for Davis and conducting an evidentiary hearing, granted Jackson’s petition and denied Bray’s. Finding no error, we affirm. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND During intra-familial disputes concerning the care of Helen Davis, her daughter, Dianne Jackson, filed a petition to be appointed conservator of her person and estate on February 6, 2015.1 Two months later, Davis’s son Laurack Bray filed a second petition seeking his own appointment. The probate investigator prepared a report, which was mailed on March 24, 2015. A second report was mailed to all parties on May 30, 2015. Neither report is contained in the record. However, the record does contain two reports from the probate Volunteer Panel (PVP) attorney appointed for Davis. The first, dated April 9, 2015, reflects his investigation, including interviews with Davis and both of her children. The report indicated that Davis consented to the conservatorship and to the appointment of Jackson as the conservator, and recommended that appointment. On June 2, 2015, after Bray filed his petition, the PVP attorney prepared a second report, making the same recommendation after review of additional documents and re-interviewing Davis and others. The parties, each self-represented, appeared in court on June 4, 2015, at which time the court indicated it had reviewed the report of the PVP attorney, as well as the court investigator, and that both recommended the granting of Jackson’s petition. Bray challenged statements in the PVP report, and requested an evidentiary hearing. The court set that hearing for June 12, 2015. On June 12, the court took testimony from both Bray and Jackson. At the conclusion of that testimony, the court found that the evidence was “overwhelmingly in favor of Jackson’s petition,” stating as its reasons: Davis’s stated preference and her previous signature of a healthcare directive naming Jackson; that Jackson, and not Bray, visited