County of Los Angeles v. Superior Court
222 Cal. App. 4th 434
| Cal. Ct. App. | 2013Background
- Kennebrew, 83, suffers dementia and was charged with murder and related offenses; he was found incompetent to stand trial and committed to Patton State Hospital.
- Doctors diagnosed dementia of the Alzheimer’s type with behavioral disturbances, noting risk of violence and need for structured treatment.
- Patton physicians sought a conservatorship; August–November 2012 the public guardian declined to petition, citing dementia as non-qualifying under LPS Act.
- April 5, 2013 the probate court established a probate conservatorship (in Michigan) for Kennebrew, seeking to relocate him from California.
- May 15, 2013 the criminal court ordered the public guardian to petition for a Murphy conservatorship under LPS Act §5008(h)(1)(B) due to ongoing danger; petitioner County sought writ relief.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether dementia constitutes a mental disorder under LPS 5008(h)(1)(B) | Kennebrew’s dementia qualifies; dementia is a mental disorder under LPS. | Dementia is not a qualifying mental disorder under LPS; Murphy conservatorship unavailable. | Dementia is a mental disorder; Murphy conservatorship appropriate under facts. |
| Whether the court could compel the public guardian to petition for conservatorship | Court may compel guardian to act when discretionary determinations fail or are unlawful. | Public guardian has sole discretion to seek or decline LPS conservatorships; court cannot compel. | Court may review guardian's discretion; may require petition if law supports it. |
| Whether the trial court properly ordered a Murphy conservatorship instead of LPS 5008(h)(1)(A) | Public guardian erred in interpreting dementia as non-qualifying for LPS; Murphy is warranted given danger. | Dementia may not be “mental disorder” for LPS; but Murphy conservatorship can still address public safety when criteria met. | Trial court correctly ordered Murphy conservatorship given pending felony information and danger findings. |
| Whether probate conservatorship provided an adequate alternative to Murphy conservatorship | Probate conservatorship is adequate and preferred; LPS not required. | Probate conservatorship did not address public safety and placement concerns; insufficient as alternative. | Probate conservatorship did not address public safety concerns; Murphy LPS route remains justified. |
Key Cases Cited
- Conservatorship of Hofferber, 28 Cal.3d 161 (Cal. 1980) (establishes dangerousness and placement considerations for Murphy conservatorships)
- Karriker, 149 Cal.App.4th 763 (Cal. App. 2007) (public guardian discretion on gravely disabled dementia; limits court review)
- Skeirik, 229 Cal.App.3d 444 (Cal. App. 1991) (legislative aims of LPS Act; public safety vs. liberty balance)
- Chambers, 71 Cal.App.3d 277 (Cal. App. 1977) (DSM mental disorder reference in LPS context)
- Conservatorship of Susan T., 8 Cal.4th 1005 (Cal. 1994) (purpose and framework of LPS Act conservatorships)
- Jones v. Superior Court, 26 Cal.App.4th 92 (Cal. App. 1994) (waiver/consideration rules for raised issues)