Kern Regional Center v. M.W. CA5

Filed 4/26/22 Kern Regional Center v. M.W. CA5

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

KERN REGIONAL CENTER , F082910 Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. MI003503-00) v.

M.W., OPINION Defendant and Appellant.

THE COURT* APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Kern County. Marcos R. Camacho, Judge. Rudy Kraft, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Cynthia Zimmer, Kern County District Attorney, Esther Schlaerth, Deputy District Attorney, for Plaintiff and Respondent. -ooOoo-

* Before Franson, Acting P. J., Peña, J. and Snauffer, J.

In this appeal, M.W. challenges the sufficiency of the evidence supporting the conclusion he is a developmentally disabled person who is a danger to himself and/or others, resulting in his commitment to the custody of the California Department of State Hospitals at the Kern Regional Center (KRC). M.W. also challenges the term of his commitment as violating his right to equal protection under the constitution. KRC disputes these contentions. Following our review of the record and our consideration of the legal standards governing these forms of commitments, we affirm the findings supporting M.W.’s commitment to KRC, and further conclude there was no violation of M.W.’s constitutional rights. We affirm. PROCEDURAL SUMMARY On May 18, 2020, KRC filed a petition pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code1 section 6500 et seq., alleging M.W. was a developmentally disabled person who posed a danger to himself and/or others, and that this disability makes it difficult to control his dangerous behavior. A hearing on the petition was held almost one year later in May and June 2021. On June 16, 2021, the court issued its ruling finding M.W. was a developmentally disabled person who was a danger to himself and/or others, as defined by sections 6500 through 6512, and that his mental deficiency, disorder, and/or abnormality caused him serious difficulty in controlling his dangerous behavior. The court further found that the least restrictive placement for M.W. to achieve the purposes of treatment was a residential or group home. FACTUAL SUMMARY The facts supporting the petition were presented through two witnesses in support of the petition, followed by M.W.’s testimony.