Conservatorship of S.C. CA2/6

Filed 3/29/22 Conservatorship of S.C. 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 2d Civ. No. B313386 Person of S.C. (Super. Ct. No. PR040403) (San Luis Obispo County) ________________________________

PUBLIC GUARDIAN OF THE COUNTY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO, as Conservator, etc.,

Petitioner and Respondent,

v.

S.C.,

Objector and Appellant.

S.C. appeals the trial court’s order reappointing a conservator of her person pursuant to the Lanterman-Petris- Short Act (LPS Act). (Welf. & Inst. Code,1 § 5000 et seq.)

All statutory references are to the Welfare and 1

Institutions Code.

Appellant contends the evidence is insufficient to support the order and that the court applied the incorrect burden of proof in making its findings. We affirm. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY Appellant is a 57-year-old woman with a longstanding diagnosis of schizoaffective disorder bipolar type. In June 2004, the San Luis Obispo County Public Guardian was appointed as the conservator of appellant’s person. In January 2021, the San Luis Obispo County Public Guardian filed a petition for reappointment of the conservator under section 5361. The declaration submitted in support of the petition, signed by Drs. Matthew Lilly and Ricki-Leigh Brampton, stated among other things that appellant’s mental disorder rendered her unable to meet her basic needs for food, clothing and shelter because “she lacks the organization of thought [and] the appropriate insight [and] sound judgment needed to develop and execute a viable self-care plan. [She also has u]nrealistic expectations of 3rd party support [and] poor understanding of subsidized housing options.” Appellant waived her right to a jury trial. Dr. Rose Drago, a psychiatrist, offered her expert opinion that appellant was gravely disabled as a result of a mental disorder. In forming her opinion Dr. Drago reviewed and relied on the declaration of Drs. Lilly and Brampton, appellant’s records from Nueva Vista in Monterey County (where appellant has been living since 2012), and the original conservatorship investigative report. Dr. Drago had also met with appellant on numerous occasions regarding the renewals of her conservatorship and last met with her the day prior to the doctor’s testimony. When Dr. Drago last met with appellant she did not exhibit any overt symptoms of her mental disorder although she usually exhibits mild symptoms on a daily basis. Appellant is prescribed