T.B. v. O.B. (In re O.B.)
244 Cal. Rptr. 3d 192
Cal. Ct. App. 5th2019Background
- In Aug. 2017 respondents (mother T.B. and sister C.B.) petitioned for a limited conservatorship over O.B., an 18‑year‑old diagnosed with autism, alleging she cannot provide for personal needs.
- A contested evidentiary hearing was held; the probate court limited consideration to evidence actually received at trial (excluding out‑of‑court reports/declarations not admitted).
- Appellant presented experts (Dr. Kathy Khoie and probate investigator Christopher Donati) who testified a conservatorship was not appropriate; regional center and other medical evaluations (Drs. Jacobs and Blifeld) supported conservatorship.
- Mother testified to daily contact, extensive school absences, need to assist O.B. with routine tasks, safety/trust concerns, and proposed relocating O.B. to Orange County and enrolling her in a different special‑education program.
- The probate court found by clear and convincing evidence that O.B. lacked capacity to perform some tasks necessary for personal needs, granted a limited conservatorship of the person, and gave conservators authority to make education decisions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the probate court lacked jurisdiction to alter O.B.’s special education plan / education placement | Appellant: probate court was preempted by federal/state education statutes and could not modify or prevent graduation or otherwise alter the IEP/placement | Respondents: court may grant education‑decision power to a limited conservator under Probate Code §2351.5(b)(7) | Held: court did not modify an IEP; it lawfully granted conservators decision‑making power over education; no jurisdictional bar cited that invalidates grant |
| Whether substantial evidence supports appointment of a limited conservator | Appellant: experts testified conservatorship unnecessary; court erred given her functioning and potential independence | Respondents: testimony (mother, regional center, medical) and court’s observations support findings of incapacity for some personal‑care tasks | Held: substantial evidence supports findings; appellate review defers to trial factfinding despite conflicting expert opinions |
| Whether court violated conservatorship principles (least restrictive alternative, ignoring wishes, prejudgment) | Appellant: court ignored her wishes, failed to consider less restrictive alternatives, and prejudged case | Respondents: court considered wishes, expressly found conservatorship was least restrictive alternative and did not prejudge final outcome | Held: court complied with statutory requirements; presumption it considered less restrictive alternatives; pretrial comments did not show prejudgment |
Key Cases Cited
- Conservatorship of Ramirez, 90 Cal.App.4th 390 (supports substantial‑evidence standard and deference to trial court findings)
- Conservatorship of B.C., 6 Cal.App.5th 1028 (one witness’s testimony can suffice to support conservatorship findings)
- Conservatorship of Amanda B., 149 Cal.App.4th 342 (appellate deference where contrary evidence exists)
- Sheila S. v. Superior Court, 84 Cal.App.4th 872 (clarifies appellate review when trial findings required clear and convincing proof)
- People v. Rodas, 6 Cal.5th 219 (trial court may consider its own observations of a party when assessing capacity/mental state)
- Estate of Nicholas, 177 Cal.App.3d 1071 (admissibility of reports received without objection at contested hearings)