Conservatorship of O.B.
9 Cal.5th 989
| Cal. | 2020Background
- Petition by mother and sister to appoint limited coconservators for O.B., an 18‑year‑old with autism; contested evidentiary hearing in probate court.
- Several lay witnesses testified favoring conservatorship, while a psychologist and a public‑guardian investigator testified it was unnecessary.
- Probate judge, who observed O.B. at proceedings, appointed limited coconservators; no statement of decision was requested.
- Court of Appeal affirmed, holding the trial court’s clear‑and‑convincing standard "disappears" on appeal and applying ordinary substantial‑evidence review.
- California Supreme Court granted review to resolve a split over how appellate courts should assess sufficiency of the evidence when the trial finding required clear and convincing proof.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Proper standard of appellate review when trial finding required clear and convincing evidence | Appellant (O.B.): appellate court must ask whether a reasonable trier of fact could have found the fact "highly probable" (i.e., adjust substantial‑evidence review to the heightened standard). | Respondents: clear‑and‑convincing standard guides the trial court only and "disappears" on appeal; apply ordinary substantial‑evidence review. | Court: appellate review must account for the heightened degree of certainty — ask whether the record contains substantial evidence from which a reasonable factfinder could have found the fact highly probable, while deferring to trial‑factfinding. |
| Application to this conservatorship | O.B.: evidence was insufficient under the clear‑and‑convincing standard (experts opposed, judge gave no detailed findings). | Respondents/Court of Appeal: substantial evidence supported appointment; affirmed. | Supreme Court: Court of Appeal erred by treating the standard as vanished; reversed and remanded for reconsideration under the correct standard. |
| Precedent and legislative intent about whether the standard "disappears" on appeal | O.B.: prior decisions and logic require appellate courts to account for the higher standard. | Respondents: longstanding cases and treatise language (Witkin) indicate the clear‑and‑convincing test does not apply on appeal; Legislature understood that when enacting conservatorship statute. | Court: rejected the "disappears" rule; disapproved prior authority to the extent it held the standard has no bearing on appellate sufficiency review; legislative‑intent argument unpersuasive. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Angelia P., 28 Cal.3d 908 (Cal. 1981) (appellate review of termination of parental rights must consider whether a reasonable trier could find facts by clear and convincing evidence)
- Conservatorship of Wendland, 26 Cal.4th 519 (Cal. 2001) (describes clear and convincing proof as requiring a finding of high probability)
- Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (U.S. 1979) (criminal‑conviction sufficiency review must ask whether any rational trier could find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt)
- People v. Johnson, 26 Cal.3d 557 (Cal. 1980) (adopts Jackson‑style sufficiency review for California criminal appeals)
- In re White, 9 Cal.5th 455 (Cal. 2020) (applies clear‑and‑convincing‑adjusted sufficiency review to bail determination)
- T.J. v. Superior Court, 21 Cal.App.5th 1229 (Cal. Ct. App. 2018) (applied an appellate test requiring substantial evidence that could satisfy the clear‑and‑convincing standard)