Yolo County Public Guardian v. O.R. CA3 ( 2023 )

Filed 6/29/23 Yolo County Public Guardian v. O.R. CA3
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
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 This opinion has not been certified for publication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
THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT
(Yolo)
----
Conservatorship of the Person and Estate of O.R. C097074
YOLO COUNTY PUBLIC GUARDIAN, (Super. Ct. No. MH-2018-014)
Petitioner and Respondent,
v.
O.R.,
Objector and Appellant.
Appointed counsel for appellant O.R. filed an opening brief under
Conservatorship of Ben C. (2007) 40 Cal.4th 529 (Ben C.) setting forth the facts of the
case. O.R. was advised by counsel of the nature of the opening brief, as well as her right
to file a supplemental brief. O.R. did not file a supplemental brief.
We will dismiss the appeal. (Ben C., supra, 40 Cal.4th. at p. 544.)
1
BACKGROUND
On April 26, 2018, the trial court ordered a one-year conservatorship for O.R.
under the Lanterman-Petris-Short Act (LPS Act) (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 5000 et seq.).
The trial court subsequently extended the conservatorship a number of times.
On April 28, 2022, the Yolo County Public Guardian (Public Guardian) sought
another renewal of O.R.’s conservatorship, along with a temporary extension pending
trial.
At trial, the Public Guardian called Dr. Alison Steffensen, who testified as an
expert. O.R. refused to speak with Dr. Steffensen, but the doctor reviewed records from
North Valley Behavioral Health, Yolo County Health and Human Services (HHSA), the
Public Guardian, Canyon Manor (a previous placement), and Crestwood (O.R.’s
placement at the time). Dr. Steffensen also interviewed O.R.’s psychiatrist, a nurse
practitioner at Crestwood, and an HHSA clinician about O.R.’s diagnosis, behavior, and
history. Dr. Steffensen opined that O.R. was experiencing “schizoaffective disorder and
amphetamine use disorder.”
In the prior quarter, O.R. had experienced hallucinations. Although she had been
maintained in a locked facility, she left her placement without authorization more than
once. After one incident, O.R. complained she was pregnant with a robot and that people
were trying to kill her. O.R. has used methamphetamine after leaving her placement and
the drug increases her delusions. Dr. Steffensen said O.R. is unable to care for herself
and has poor insight into her mental illness. According to Dr. Steffensen, O.R. should be
maintained in a locked facility to keep her safe.
O.R. admitted she has a substance abuse problem but testified she can care for
herself and she would continue taking her prescribed medication. She said staff at her
previous placement drugged her with elephant darts.
The trial court renewed the conservatorship.
2
DISCUSSION
In Ben C., the California Supreme Court concluded that the procedures referenced
in People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 and Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738are not required in the appeal of a conservatorship under the LPS Act. (Ben C., supra,
40 Cal.4th at pp. 536-537.) Here we decline to review the record for error.
DISPOSITION
The appeal is dismissed.
/S/
MAURO, Acting P. J.
We concur:
/S/
KRAUSE, J.
/S/
EARL, J.
3