K.G. v. Meredith
138 Cal. Rptr. 3d 645
Cal. Ct. App.2012Background
- K.G. and Donna H. were found gravely disabled under the LPS Act and placed under conservatorships that controlled their medical treatment decisions, including involuntary antipsychotic medication.
- Petitioners, joined by CAMHPRA, sued the Marin County Public Guardian seeking mandamus and declaratory relief over a claimed practice of obtaining conservatorship orders depriving conservatees of medical decision rights without proper decisional incapacity determinations.
- The Public Guardian revised pleading forms and the individual conservatorships at issue expired; the trial court dismissed the petition as moot, which Petitioners appealed.
- The court held that petitioners are entitled to declaratory relief on two issues: (1) medical decisional disabilities may not be imposed without proper notice/hearing or a judicial decisional-incapacity determination, and (2) due process requires adequate notice and opportunity to be heard.
- The opinion discusses the LPS Act framework, capacity standards (Riese, Keyhea, Qawi), and due process rights, and later remands for potential mandamus relief while affirming declaratory relief.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Must a decisional incapacity finding precede 5357(d) disabilities? | Petitioners argue a judicial determination of incapacity is required before imposing the disability and that notice/hearing safeguards are missing. | Public Guardian contends no express statutory finding is required; procedures may suffice with notice and representation. | Declaratory relief granted; finding required with remand for mandamus consideration. |
| Due process adequacy in temporary conservatorships for 5357(d) disabilities? | Temporary conservatorships impose disabilities without notice, representation, hearing, or informed consent checks, violating due process. | Current procedures provide notice and access to counsel; ex parte aspects are permissible under statutory frameworks. | Public Guardian's practice violates due process; remand for mandamus consideration. |
| Whether the action is moot after conservatorships expired or changed? | Action challenges ongoing practices; not moot despite expirations because it seeks broader declaratory relief and future compliance. | Changes in procedures render the action moot and mandate relief inappropriate. | Action not moot; issues capable of repetition and affecting others; remand ordered. |
Key Cases Cited
- Keyhea v. Rushen, 178 Cal.App.3d 526 (Cal. Ct. App. 1986) (implied right to incapacity determinations and due process for treatment decisions)
- Riese v. St. Mary’s Hospital & Medical Center, 209 Cal.App.3d 1303 (Cal. Ct. App. 1989) (limits on involuntary medication absent capacity or emergency; capacity hearing framework)
- In re Qawi, 32 Cal.4th 1 (Cal. Supreme Ct. 2004) (privacy/autonomy balanced with parens patriae; capacity findings in treatment decisions)
- Conservatorship of John L., 48 Cal.4th 131 (Cal. Supreme Ct. 2010) (capacity standards and procedural protections for LPS conservatorships)
- Conservatorship of Christopher A., 139 Cal.App.4th 604 (Cal. Ct. App. 2006) (due process requires informed consent/consultation in placement/disabilities issues)
- Conservatorship of Tian L., 149 Cal.App.4th 1022 (Cal. Ct. App. 2007) (attorney consent can't substitute for patient consent; need informed consent)
- Conservatorship of George H., 169 Cal.App.4th 157 (Cal. Ct. App. 2008) (procedural protections for LPS conservatorships)
- Edward W. v. Lamkins, 99 Cal.App.4th 516 (Cal. Ct. App. 2002) (due process in temporary conservatorships and protective proceedings)
- Conservatorship of Walker, 206 Cal.App.3d 1572 (Cal. Ct. App. 1989) (incapacity and evidentiary standards in conservatorship determinations)
- Conservatorship of Moore, 185 Cal.App.3d 718 (Cal. Ct. App. 1986) (due process concerns in conservatorship proceedings)