Conservatorship of H.W. CA2/6
Filed 8/15/16 Conservatorship of H.W. CA2/6 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 SIX
Conservatorship of the Person of H.W. 2d Civil No. B270258 (Super. Ct. No. PR130306) (San Luis Obispo County)
SAN LUIS OBISPO COUNTY PUBLIC GUARDIAN, as Conservator, etc.,
Petitioner and Respondent,
v.
H.W.,
Objector and Appellant.
Conservatee H.W. appeals orders of the superior court reestablishing a Lanterman-Petris-Short (LPS) Act conservatorship (Welf. & Inst. Code, §§ 5350, 5361 et seq.) and reappointing the San Luis Obispo County Public Guardian (Public Guardian) as H.W.’s conservator. The trial court found that H.W. is gravely disabled as a result of a mental disorder and that she “lacks capacity to refuse or consent to mental health treatment and medical treatment.” We conclude, among other things, that substantial evidence supports the trial court’s orders. We affirm.
FACTS On November 14, 2013, the Public Guardian filed a petition to be appointed the LPS conservator for H.W. After a January 15, 2014, court trial, the trial court granted the petition (the first conservatorship). H.W. appealed. On December 17, 2014, after a court trial, the trial court reappointed the Public Guardian as LPS conservator for H.W (the second conservatorship). H.W. appealed. In Conservatorship of Heather W. (2016) 245 Cal.App.4th 378, we conditionally reversed the judgment on the second conservatorship because the trial court did not obtain a personal waiver from H.W. of her right to a jury trial. In March 2016, while the case was on appeal, the parties stipulated to a reversal of the judgment in the first conservatorship for the same reason. On October 29, 2015, the Public Guardian filed the instant petition seeking “reappointment” as “LPS conservator” for H.W. for the period December 20, 2015, to December 19, 2016 (the current conservatorship). On December 3, 2015, the trial court held a hearing where H.W. personally waived her right to a jury trial on the current conservatorship petition. At trial the Public Guardian amended the petition to state that a board-and- care facility is the “most appropriate” level of “placement” for her. The Public Guardian called H.W. as the first witness. H.W. testified she had been at the Seventh Avenue treatment facility for two years. The police sent her there because she had been knocking on someone’s door asking for money. She wanted to be “somewhere safer.” She said, “So I requested to go to the mental hospital, thinking I could get out when I got my SSI check.” Five years ago H.W. lived in motels in Salinas for three months. Her “visions” prevented her from getting a job or functioning. H.W. takes Risperdal, Ativan, Cogentin and Zyprexa for “mild schizophrenia.” She had a recent vision of “blood spurting” from a resident’s mouth, but she knew it was “fake.” Sometimes she hears things, but “that’s what Risperdal is for, and it worked for me.” She has a “discharge”
More from California Court of Appeal
- People v. Hill (1998)
- In Re Autumn H. (1994)
- Nwosu v. Uba (2004)
- In Re Casey D. (1999)
- Santisas v. Goodin (1998)
- Cahill v. San Diego Gas & Electric Co. (2011)
- People v. Rivera (2015)
- People v. Barnett (1998)
- People v. Serrano (2012)
- Benach v. County of Los Angeles (2007)