Conservatorship of K.P.
S258212
| Cal. | Jun 28, 2021Background
- Los Angeles Public Guardian sought renewal of a one-year Lanterman–Petris–Short Act (LPS) conservatorship for K.P.; K.P. demanded a jury trial.
- Evidence: treating psychologist diagnosed schizophrenia, documented delusions/hallucinations, disorganized behavior, lack of insight, refusal/resistance to medications and therapy; near-medication overdose; mother willing to assist but could not provide housing.
- Trial court used CACI No. 4000 (elements: mental disorder; gravely disabled) and CACI No. 4002 (defined “gravely disabled” and stated the jury may consider unwillingness or inability to accept voluntary treatment).
- K.P. requested adding unwillingness/inability to accept voluntary treatment as a separate required element in CACI No. 4000; trial court denied the request. Jury found K.P. gravely disabled; conservatorship renewed.
- Court of Appeal affirmed; Supreme Court granted review to resolve split in authority and held that amenability to voluntary treatment is relevant to grave disability but is not a separate element that must be proven.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether unwillingness or inability to accept voluntary treatment is a separate element of LPS conservatorship | K.P.: Yes — statute and some precedent require a separate finding; jury instruction should list it as an element | Public Guardian: No — statutory trial issue is only grave disability; treatment amenability is relevant evidence, not an element | Amenability to voluntary treatment is relevant to the grave-disability determination but is not a separate statutory element required to impose a conservatorship |
| Whether § 5352’s inpatient recommendation requirement (unwilling/unable to accept treatment) converts into a trial element or applies to reappointment proceedings | K.P.: § 5352’s requirement should be incorporated into trial/reappointment findings | Public Guardian: § 5352 governs a professional’s recommendation for initiating conservatorship (esp. for inpatients) and does not create a separate trial element or apply to reappointments | § 5352’s unwilling/unable language governs professional recommendations for inpatient referrals only; it does not create a separate element for trial or reappointment hearings |
| Whether due process requires the state to prove unwillingness/inability to accept treatment beyond a reasonable doubt as a separate constitutional prerequisite | K.P.: Due process requires separate proof before liberty can be curtailed | Public Guardian: Due process is satisfied by allowing the factfinder to consider amenability as evidence bearing on grave disability | Due process does not require a separate element; permitting consideration of amenability within the grave-disability inquiry is constitutionally adequate |
| What precedential weight to give earlier cases (Davis, Walker, Early, Symington) | K.P.: Reliance on Davis and Walker which treated amenability as an element | Public Guardian: Early and Symington show amenability is evidence, not an element; Davis/Walker misread the statutory scheme | Davis and Walker are disapproved to the extent they require a separate amenability element; Early and Symington correctly treat amenability as relevant evidence to grave disability |
Key Cases Cited
- Conservatorship of Early, 35 Cal.3d 244 (1983) (factfinder must consider availability of third-party assistance; such evidence can defeat conservatorship if it creates reasonable doubt)
- Conservatorship of Davis, 124 Cal.App.3d 313 (1981) (held trial should determine unwillingness/unable to accept treatment — disapproved in part by this opinion)
- Conservatorship of Walker, 196 Cal.App.3d 1082 (1987) (endorsed two-step approach requiring separate amenability finding — disapproved in part by this opinion)
- Conservatorship of Symington, 209 Cal.App.3d 1464 (1989) (treated unwillingness/inability language in § 5352 as a provider recommendation standard, not a trial element)
- Conservatorship of Ben C., 40 Cal.4th 529 (2007) (discusses procedural safeguards and liberty interests in conservatorship context)
- John L., 48 Cal.4th 131 (2010) (standards for appellate review and statutory interpretation in conservatorship cases)
- O’Connor v. Donaldson, 422 U.S. 563 (1975) (constitutional principle that a state may not confine a nondangerous individual who can survive safely in freedom with help)