32 Cal.App.5th 626
Cal. Ct. App.2019Background
- Appellant O.B., an 18‑year‑old with an autism spectrum diagnosis, was living with her great‑grandmother and attending Cabrillo High School when respondents (her mother and sister) petitioned for a limited conservatorship of her person.
- Petitioners alleged O.B. could not properly provide for her personal needs (health, food, clothing, shelter) and sought powers including educational decisionmaking.
- The probate court held a contested evidentiary hearing; expert witnesses for O.B. (Dr. Khoie and probate investigator Donati) testified she was capable of greater independence, while regional center and medical evaluations (not all admitted) recommended conservatorship.
- The court found by substantial evidence that O.B. lacks capacity to perform some tasks necessary to care for herself and to give informed medical consent, and it granted a limited conservatorship with education decision powers to the conservators.
- O.B. appealed, arguing the probate court exceeded its jurisdiction by purportedly modifying her special education plan and that the evidence was insufficient; the Court of Appeal affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (O.B.) | Defendant's Argument (Respondents) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Jurisdiction to affect education | Probate court was preempted by federal/state education law and could not alter special education placement | Court may grant conservator authority over education under Prob. Code §2351.5(b)(7); this did not modify the IEP itself | Court: No excess of jurisdiction; it granted decisionmaking power re: education but did not modify the special education plan |
| Sufficiency of evidence for limited conservatorship | Evidence (experts) shows O.B. is not a conservatorship candidate; she can live independently with supports | Mother testimony, regional center and medical opinions, and court observations show O.B. lacks capacity for some personal needs | Court: Substantial evidence supports appointment despite contrary expert testimony |
| Consideration of less restrictive alternatives | Court ignored O.B.'s wishes and failed to consider less restrictive options | Court expressly found conservatorship was least restrictive alternative and considered O.B.'s preferences | Court: No reversible error; record supports presumption the court considered less restrictive alternatives |
| Alleged judicial prejudice | Pretrial remarks showed the court prejudged outcome | Court merely noted a prima facie showing and warned counsel to be prepared at trial | Court: No demonstration of prejudgment; trial court considered evidence before ruling |
Key Cases Cited
- Conservatorship of Ramirez, 90 Cal.App.4th 390 (appellate standard: view evidence favorably to findings)
- Conservatorship of B.C., 6 Cal.App.5th 1028 (one witness may suffice to support conservatorship findings)
- Conservatorship of Amanda B., 149 Cal.App.4th 342 (appellate review sustains trial court where substantial evidence supports findings despite contrary evidence)
- People v. Rodas, 6 Cal.5th 219 (trial court observations of a person may properly inform competency/capacity determinations)
- Estate of Nicholas, 177 Cal.App.3d 1071 (reports received without objection in contested hearings may be considered competent evidence)
- Landry v. Berryessa Union School Dist., 39 Cal.App.4th 691 (presumption that trial court followed law, including consideration of required factors)