Conservatorship of A.B. CA1/4
A161129
| Cal. Ct. App. | Jan 21, 2022Background
- On June 30, 2020 the Public Guardian filed an LPS petition alleging A.B. was gravely disabled and sought conservatorship of his person.
- Initial hearing July 14, 2020; trial originally set for August 18 but was continued several times and commenced September 29, 2020.
- On October 5, 2020 the trial court found A.B. gravely disabled and appointed the Public Guardian conservator of his person for one year; A.B. timely appealed.
- While the appeal was pending the Public Guardian filed a reappointment petition (Aug. 6, 2021); A.B. accepted reappointment on October 26, 2021 for three months and letters issued November 5, 2021.
- The one-year conservatorship at issue expired on October 5, 2021; the Public Guardian argued that this termination rendered the appeal moot.
- A.B. raised multiple challenges on appeal (delay/continuance credit of 67 days, admission of case-specific hearsay under People v. Sanchez, sufficiency of evidence of grave disability, and due-process concerns from appellate delays).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (A.B.) | Defendant's Argument (Public Guardian) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Mootness of appeal after conservatorship expired | The appeal remains justiciable because collateral consequences and legal effects may persist. | The conservatorship expired and A.B. later accepted reappointment, so no effective relief can be granted; appeal is moot. | Appeal dismissed as moot; exceptions to mootness do not apply. |
| Trial continuances / credit for 67-day delay | Court continuances (over objection) lacked good cause and the delay should reduce his one-year commitment by 67 days. | Continuances were attributable to case circumstances (COVID, in-person vs remote appearance, scheduling) and the issue is moot. | No relief: claim moot and record does not support broader ruling on systemic timeline violations. |
| Admission of case‑specific hearsay (People v. Sanchez) | Trial court admitted case-specific hearsay in violation of Sanchez, rendering admission improper. | Any challenge is moot given the conservatorship termination and A.B.’s later acceptance of reappointment. | Moot; court did not reach a Sanchez-based evidentiary ruling on the merits. |
| Sufficiency of evidence of grave disability | Admissible evidence was insufficient to prove A.B. was gravely disabled. | Sufficient evidence supported the finding at trial; but in any event the appeal is moot. | Moot; court dismissed appeal without deciding sufficiency. |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Sanchez, 63 Cal.4th 665 (California Supreme Court) (limits use of case‑specific hearsay in expert testimony)
- Conservatorship of J.Y., 49 Cal.App.5th 220 (Cal. Ct. App.) (appeal is moot when no effective relief can be granted)
- Conservatorship of Joseph W., 199 Cal.App.4th 953 (Cal. Ct. App.) (mootness dismissal in conservatorship appeals)
- In re David B., 12 Cal.App.5th 633 (Cal. Ct. App.) (discusses discretionary exceptions to mootness)
- Conservatorship of Jones, 208 Cal.App.3d 292 (Cal. Ct. App.) (collateral consequences may survive termination of conservatorship)
- Conservatorship of Forsythe, 192 Cal.App.3d 1406 (Cal. Ct. App.) (policy favoring expedited appeals in conservatorship cases)
- Conservatorship of Jose B., 50 Cal.App.5th 963 (Cal. Ct. App.) (treatment of statutory timelines as directory vs mandatory)
- United States v. Kimmons, 917 F.2d 1011 (7th Cir.) (delay in obtaining transcript not necessarily inordinate)
- United States v. Pratt, 645 F.2d 89 (1st Cir.) (similar on transcript‑delay reasonableness)