Conservatorship of R.B. CA1/3

Filed 4/28/22 Conservatorship of R.B. CA1/3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 THREE

Conservatorship of the Person of R.B.,

PUBLIC GUARDIAN OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, A161512 Petitioner and Respondent, (Contra Costa County v. Super. Ct. No. P1701134) R.B., Objector and Appellant.

R.B. appeals a trial court order establishing a one-year conservatorship over his person under the Lanterman-Petris-Short Act (“LPS Act”) (Welf. & Inst. Code, §§ 5000 et seq.) and imposing special disabilities. While this appeal was pending, the one-year conservatorship challenged by R.B. expired. We dismiss the appeal as moot. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND Petitioner Public Guardian of Contra Costa County (“Public Guardian”) was first appointed conservator of R.B. for a one-year period commencing August 30, 2017. In 2018, the Public Guardian successfully petitioned to reestablish the conservatorship for an additional one-year period. In 2019,

1

the conservatorship was again extended for an additional year following another successful reappointment petition by the Public Guardian. In August 2020, the Public Guardian again sought to extend the conservatorship and filed the petition for reappointment of a conservator for R.B. at issue in this appeal. In the petition, the Public Guardian alleged that R.B. remained gravely disabled due to a mental disorder and unwilling to accept or incapable of accepting treatment voluntarily. R.B. objected. A court trial on the petition took place through video conferencing in November 2020. At the outset of the session, R.B.’s counsel asked the court to address the jury waiver issue with R.B. Asked by the court whether he knew he had the right to a jury trial, R.B. responded, “Yes.” The court then explained, “What is being proposed is that you waive that right and you allow me, the judge, to hear your trial and not a jury. Do you understand that, sir?” After R.B. stated he understood, the court asked whether he agreed to have a judge not a jury hear his case. R.B. responded, “Yes.” His counsel joined and concurred in the jury waiver. The court found R.B. knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily waived his right to a jury trial and proceeded to conduct a court trial on the pending petition. During the trial, the Public Guardian presented the testimony of R.B.’s mother and expert psychiatrist Michael Levin. R.B. testified in opposition to the reappointment petition. At the conclusion of the court trial, the court approved the conservator reappointment. It found R.B. gravely disabled beyond a reasonable doubt and, because of a mental disorder, unable to provide for his food, clothing, or shelter. The court further ordered that the disabilities requested in the petition for reappointment be imposed. Accordingly, the court disabled R.B.’s ability to exercise the following: (1) the right to refuse or consent to treatment specifically related to his grave disability, including psychotropic