Imperial County Behavioral Health Services v. Joseph W.
199 Cal. App. 4th 953
| Cal. Ct. App. | 2011Background
- County filed an LPS petition seeking reestablishment of conservatorship for Joseph, alleging gravely disabled due to a mental disorder.
- The trial court held a June 14, 2010 hearing, conducted as a court (bench) trial on the petition, and reestablished the conservatorship for another year.
- Joseph objected to the petition and requested a hearing, and subsequently demanded a jury trial on gravely disabled, within the statutory framework.
- After the bench trial, the court denied the jury-trial demand and entered judgment reestablishing the conservatorship; Joseph appealed.
- Joseph argues the court erred by interpreting his hearing request as a court-trial election and violated due process by denying jury trial rights.
- The appellate court ultimately held that Joseph waived or forfeited any error in misinterpretation by participating in the bench trial and not objecting, affirming the judgment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court properly interpreted the hearing request | Joseph | County | Court misinterpreted hearing as court trial; but waived error |
| Effect of waiver/forfeiture on jury-trial rights | Joseph | County | Joseph waived jury-right by participating in bench trial without timely objection |
| Right to jury trial under LPS reestablishment procedures | Joseph | County | Disjunctive right to court or jury trial preserved, but waived by conduct |
| Due process challenge based on denial of jury trial | Joseph | County | No due process violation given waiver/forfeiture |
Key Cases Cited
- Conservatorship of John L., 48 Cal.4th 131 (2010) (discusses gravely disabled standard and procedures)
- Conservatorship of Deidre B., 180 Cal.App.4th 1306 (2010) (reestablishment hearing and procedures; summary vs full hearing)
- Conservatorship of Martha P., 117 Cal.App.4th 861 (2004) (distinguishes hearing vs trial in reestablishment)
- Conservatorship of Kevin M., 49 Cal.App.4th 79 (1996) (public interest and mootness considerations in conservatorships)
- Conservatorship of Susan T., 8 Cal.4th 1005 (1994) (public-interest and recurring nature of issues)
- Conservatorship of Rodney M., 50 Cal.App.4th 1266 (1996) (issues capable of recurring and evading review)
- Taylor v. Union Pac. R.R. Corp., 16 Cal.3d 893 (1976) (waiver concepts and procedural forfeiture)
- Glogau v. Hagan, 107 Cal.App.2d 313 (1951) (waiver by participating in trial without demanding jury)
- Conservatorship of Martha P., 117 Cal.App.4th 861 (2004) (see above)
- City of Los Angeles v. Zeller, 176 Cal. 194 (1917) (jury trial waiver principles in historical context)