Conservatorship and Estate of C.J. CA5

Filed 8/29/22 Conservatorship and Estate of C.J. 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

Conservatorship of the Person and Estate of C.J.

KERN COUNTY PUBLIC CONSERVATOR, F083590

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. MI-7023-00)

v. OPINION C.J.,

Objector and Appellant.

THE COURT * APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Kern County. Marcos R. Camacho, Judge. Linda J. Zachritz, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Objector and Appellant. Margo A. Raison, County Counsel, Kyle W. Holmes and Gustavo Maya, Deputy County Counsel for Plaintiff and Respondent. -ooOoo-

* Before Poochigian, Acting P. J., Detjen, J. and Meehan, J.

Appellant C.J. challenges the trial court’s decision she should be the subject of a conservatorship pursuant to the Lanterman-Petris-Short Act (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 5000 et seq.).1 Appellant contends substantial evidence does not support the findings made by the trial court. Following our review of the entire record, we affirm the judgment. PROCEDURAL SUMMARY On July 21, 2021, a petition was filed seeking the appointment of a conservator for appellant. The petition alleged appellant was gravely disabled, requiring the appointment of a public conservator. A temporary conservator was immediately appointed on July 22, 2021. The caption on the petition was thereafter amended to reflect appellant’s correct name, which was verified by a “Delayed Registration of Birth.” Following a hearing held on the petition, the trial court found the allegations of the petition to be true. The trial court specifically concluded appellant was gravely disabled pursuant to section 5008, subdivision (h), that a suitable alternative to a conservatorship was not available, and that the least restrictive and most appropriate placement for appellant was in a locked skilled nursing facility. The order appointing the public conservator was filed on October 21, 2021. After letters of conservatorship were issued, appellant filed a notice appeal on November 19, 2021. An amended order was issued on March 3, 2022, addressing a clerical error documenting one of the findings made by the trial court during the original hearing.2 FACTUAL SUMMARY In July 2021, appellant was observed “wandering” along a state highway and was taken to a local medical center for heat-related and psychiatric issues. A section 5150 report indicated appellant was confused and delusional. A recovery specialist noted