Conservatorship of Symington, 209 Cal. App. 3d 1464
Conservatee Symington came to the attention of the Orange County Public Guardian when she was referred by a geriatric specialist who believed that she was in need of an LPS conservatorship. She was
petitioned the superior court for appointment as conservator, describing Symington as "gravely disabled" within the meaning of Welfare and Institutions Code section 5008, subdivision [209 Cal. App. 3d 1466] (h). (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 5350 et seq.) The court appointed the public guardian as temporary conservator and scheduled a hearing date. Counsel was assigned for Symington. Through her attorney, she waived a jury trial on the issue of her grave disability. (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 5350, subd. (d).)
Procedural Posture
Respondent sought review of an order from the Superior Court of Orange County (California), which granted petitioner agency's petition for appointment as conservator pursuant to Cal. Welf. & Inst. Code § 5352 because respondent was gravely disabled beyond a reasonable doubt.
Overview
Petitioner agency sought an appointment as conservator of respondent describing her as gravely disabled within the meaning of Cal. Welf. & Inst. Code § 5008(h). The trial court determined that respondent was gravely disabled beyond a reasonable doubt, and granted the petition for conservatorship. On review, respondent contended that reversal was required because the trial court did not make a finding that she was unwilling or unable to voluntarily accept treatment for her mental illness under Cal. Welf. & Inst. Code § 5352. The court found that respondent denied needing any assistance whatsoever and asserted that she was capable of caring for herself. However, all the mental health professionals whose opinions were offered in evidence disagreed with her. Based on the record and the trial court's determination that respondent was indeed gravely disabled, the court found no error in granting the petition for conservatorship. Accordingly, the judgment was affirmed.
Outcome
The order, which granted the petition for appointment of conservator, was affirmed because, based on the record, the trial court correctly determined that respondent was gravely disabled.
Conservatee Symington came to the attention of the Orange County Public Guardian when she was referred by a geriatric specialist who believed that she was in need of an LPS conservatorship. She was
petitioned the superior court for appointment as conservator, describing Symington as "gravely disabled" within the meaning of Welfare and Institutions Code section 5008, subdivision [209 Cal. App. 3d 1466] (h). (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 5350 et seq.) The court appointed the public guardian as temporary conservator and scheduled a hearing date. Counsel was assigned for Symington. Through her attorney, she waived a jury trial on the issue of her grave disability. (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 5350, subd. (d).)
Procedural Posture
Respondent sought review of an order from the Superior Court of Orange County (California), which granted petitioner agency's petition for appointment as conservator pursuant to Cal. Welf. & Inst. Code § 5352 because respondent was gravely disabled beyond a reasonable doubt.
Overview
Petitioner agency sought an appointment as conservator of respondent describing her as gravely disabled within the meaning of Cal. Welf. & Inst. Code § 5008(h). The trial court determined that respondent was gravely disabled beyond a reasonable doubt, and granted the petition for conservatorship. On review, respondent contended that reversal was required because the trial court did not make a finding that she was unwilling or unable to voluntarily accept treatment for her mental illness under Cal. Welf. & Inst. Code § 5352. The court found that respondent denied needing any assistance whatsoever and asserted that she was capable of caring for herself. However, all the mental health professionals whose opinions were offered in evidence disagreed with her. Based on the record and the trial court's determination that respondent was indeed gravely disabled, the court found no error in granting the petition for conservatorship. Accordingly, the judgment was affirmed.
Outcome
The order, which granted the petition for appointment of conservator, was affirmed because, based on the record, the trial court correctly determined that respondent was gravely disabled.