Conservatorship of J.G. CA1/1

Filed 8/18/21 Conservatorship of J.G. CA1/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 ONE

Conservatorship of the Person of J.G.

PUBLIC GUARDIAN OF CONTRA A160321 COSTA COUNTY, (Contra Costa County Plaintiff and Respondent, Super. Ct. No. MSP-10-00060) v. J.G., Defendant and Appellant.

BACKGROUND On March 2, 2020, the Contra Costa County Public Guardian (Public Guardian) filed a petition seeking reappointment as conservator of the person of J.G. pursuant to the Lanterman-Petris-Short (LPS) Act. (Welf. & Inst. Code,1 § 5000 et seq.) The petition alleged that, as a result of a mental disorder, J.G. was unable to provide for her “basic personal needs for food, clothing, and shelter, and as [a] result continue[d] to be gravely disabled.” As required by section 5361, the declarations of two physicians were attached to the petition, attesting to the fact that J.G. was gravely disabled. In addition

All statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code 1

unless otherwise specified. 1

to reappointment as J.G.’s conservator, the Public Guardian requested that the court impose two disabilities: a firearms/deadly weapon prohibition and an order that J.G. be denied the right to refuse treatment related to being gravely disabled, including psychotropic medications. After a continuance due to the COVID-19 pandemic, a bench trial was held remotely via ZOOM on June 2, 2020. Dr. Levin’s resume was admitted into evidence, and he was qualified as an expert in psychiatry and grave disability. He testified that J.G.’s mental illness caused her to be unable to provide for her shelter and that she was therefore gravely disabled. J.G.’s deputy conservator during the prior five years testified regarding her interactions with J.G., and records from J.G.’s current placement were admitted into evidence. After argument, the trial court found beyond a reasonable doubt that J.G. was gravely disabled in that, because of a mental disorder, she was unable to provide for her shelter. The court granted the reappointment petition, found that J.G.’s current placement was the least restrictive, and determined by clear and convincing evidence to impose the two requested special disabilities. J.G. filed a timely notice of appeal. In her opening brief, she argued that insufficient evidence supported the following trial court findings: (1) that she was unable to provide for her own basic personal needs for shelter; (2) that her current placement was the least restrictive available placement; and (3) that the medical decisional disability was necessary under the circumstances of her case. J.G. further asserted that the reappointment order must be reversed because the record failed to establish that she knowingly and intelligently waived her right to a jury trial. After filing a respondent’s brief, the Public Guardian filed a request for judicial notice and motion to dismiss this appeal as moot. Specifically, the Public Guardian