Conservatorship and Estate of T.J. CA2/6
Filed 1/21/22 Conservatorship and Estate of T.J. CA2/6 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 2d Civil No. B311896 and Estate of T.J. (Super. Ct. No. PS008295) (Ventura County)
PUBLIC GUARDIAN OF COUNTY OF VENTURA, as Conservator, etc.
Petitioner and Respondent,
v.
T.J.,
Objector and Appellant.
T.J. appeals from the denial of his petition for rehearing challenging the trial court’s determination that he remains gravely disabled within the meaning of the
Lanterman-Petris-Short (LPS) Act. (Welf. & Inst. Code,1 § 5000 et seq.) He contends: (1) he made a prima facie showing that he is no longer gravely disabled, and (2) the dismissal of his rehearing petition violated his due process rights. We affirm. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY The Ventura County Public Guardian has been T.J.’s conservator since September 1999. In September 2020, T.J. admitted that he fell within the provisions of the LPS Act and submitted to the Public Guardian’s one-year reappointment as his conservator.2 T.J. later decided to challenge his conservatorship in a petition for rehearing, which he filed in February 2021. At the hearing on the petition, T.J. testified that his plan for housing was to “continue looking for a place to live.” He said that he knew of an apartment on Main Street but had not yet contacted the owner. When asked if he had done anything besides identify that apartment, T.J. replied, “A brand new refrigerator as well as a brand new bed and used chairs. Everything from the Goodwill.” He said he would remain at the boarding facility where the Public Guardian had placed him until he found a suitable apartment. He said that he would continue to search for housing if the Main Street apartment did not work out.
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)