C.S. v. B.C. (In Re Conservatorship the Pers. of B.C.)
212 Cal. Rptr. 3d 180
| Cal. Ct. App. | 2016Background
- B.C. suffered hypoxic brain injury after a methamphetamine/alcohol overdose, leaving her with severe memory deficits and need for supervision for health and daily activities.
- B.C. married Jesse M., who previously assisted her but who (according to medical testimony and evidence) misused her disability benefits, failed to secure recommended therapies, and has a history of methamphetamine use; subsequent drug tests showed B.C. resumed methamphetamine use while living with him.
- C.S., B.C.’s aunt, petitioned for appointment as conservator of B.C.’s person; B.C. (through private counsel then the public defender) opposed and wanted Jesse M. to make health decisions for her.
- The trial court conducted a bench trial, appointed C.S. as conservator of the person, found conservatorship was the least restrictive alternative, and restricted placement changes without court approval.
- On appeal, B.C. challenged (1) the absence of a personal jury-waiver colloquy, (2) alleged lack of consultation with the proposed conservatee, and (3) insufficiency of evidence that conservatorship (and appointing C.S. rather than Jesse) was necessary.
Issues
| Issue | B.C.'s Argument | C.S.'s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a probate conservatee must personally waive the right to a jury trial | Court’s failure to obtain B.C.’s personal jury waiver was reversible error | Probate proceedings allow counsel to waive jury; personal waiver not required absent risk of involuntary confinement | No personal waiver required; error harmless because counsel waived and probate conservatorship does not involve civil commitment |
| Whether counsel can waive a conservatee’s jury right | Involuntary-commitment cases require personal waiver; by analogy B.C. argued personal waiver required here | Counsel may bind client and waive jury in ordinary civil actions; special personal waiver only when liberty is at stake | Counsel had authority to forego jury; ordinary civil-rule applies in probate conservatorship |
| Whether the court adequately consulted the proposed conservatee (§ 1828(b)) | B.C. says she was not consulted as required | B.C. participated via counsel, opposed petition, and her views were presented; she chose not to testify | Consultation requirement satisfied because B.C.’s views were fully represented and she participated |
| Whether substantial evidence supports appointing C.S. and finding least-restrictive alternative | B.C. argues Jesse could meet her needs and spouse preference favors him | Record shows Jesse misused funds, failed to obtain recommended therapy, and B.C. continued meth use with him; conservatorship is least restrictive | Substantial evidence supports conservatorship and appointment of C.S.; Jesse unfit as decisionmaker |
Key Cases Cited
- Conservatorship of Heather W., 245 Cal.App.4th 378 (discussing personal jury-waiver requirement in LPS civil-commitment proceedings)
- People v. Blackburn, 61 Cal.4th 1113 (distinguishing when personal jury waiver is constitutionally required)
- People v. Tran, 61 Cal.4th 1160 (civil commitment jury-waiver principles)
- Conservatorship of John L., 48 Cal.4th 131 (probate conservatorship does not contemplate involuntary commitment)
- Conservatorship of Mary K., 234 Cal.App.3d 265 (counsel’s authority to waive jury in civil proceedings)
- Conservatorship of Pamela J., 133 Cal.App.4th 807 (judicial notice of post-judgment developments relevant to conservatorship)