Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
M.T., a 30-year-old with epilepsy and resulting physical and cognitive disabilities, has been cared for by her grandparents under a conservatorship since 2011. Her mother, G.T., and sister, D.T., petitioned to remove the grandparents as conservators, alleging they failed to act in M.T.'s best interest. The conservators opposed removal and moved to terminate or modify the petitioners' visits under a settlement agreement. After a court trial, the Plumas County Superior Court denied the removal petition, ordered the conservators to obtain an evaluation for services and a second medical opinion regarding M.T.'s treatment plan, and separately modified visitation. D.T., representing herself, alone appealed; G.T. is not a party to the appeal.
At trial, court investigator Kathleen Whitman testified that she would not remove the conservators but recommended changes, including government services, therapy, transportation, a well-fitted wheelchair, home modifications, and caregiving assistance. D.T. testified about her concerns over M.T.'s seizures, mobility, weight, and denied visits, including calls to adult protective services. Conservator B.R. testified that long visits and police responses were followed by increased seizures. The court ordered professionally monitored visits once every three months and alternating holidays, each visit four consecutive days not exceeding five hours per day, and required petitioners to pay M.T.'s transportation; a footnote clarified the orders required transportation payment, not a professional monitor.
The Court’s Holding
The Court of Appeal rejected D.T.'s jurisdictional challenge. Venue and jurisdiction are separate concepts: venue establishes the proper place for trial but is not an aspect of fundamental subject-matter jurisdiction. Probate Code section 2200 empowers superior courts to hear conservatorship matters, so the trial court had fundamental jurisdiction and its decision was not void. Venue is determined at the commencement of the proceeding in the county where the conservatee resides, and D.T. did not show M.T. resided outside Plumas County when the conservatorship began.
The court found no reversible evidentiary error under abuse-of-discretion review. Excluding the investigator's report was harmless because Whitman testified to its contents, and excluding text messages and e-mails about the August 2024 visit was cumulative of Officer Vanpoole's testimony. Exclusion of Dr. Dugan's expert testimony was proper: D.T. conceded she did not designate Dr. Dugan as an expert and pointed to no expert declaration, triggering Code of Civil Procedure section 2034.300's mandatory exclusion, and lay testimony would have lacked personal knowledge. The remaining right-to-present-a-defense claims failed for lack of demonstrated abuse or prejudice.
On removal, the court applied abuse-of-discretion review under Probate Code section 2650. Because no statement of decision was requested, it presumed implied findings and application of the correct statute. The appellate record omitted the stipulated medical reports and did not establish the medically recommended seizure response, and the evaluation order addressed the conservators' age and caregiving. Their disagreements with petitioners did not show an adverse interest creating an unreasonable risk of unfaithful performance. D.T.'s equal-protection and due-process challenges to the transportation-cost order were forfeited for lack of supporting authority, though the court reached them because rebuttal had been denied. The trial court's orders were affirmed, with costs awarded to the conservators.
Key Takeaways
- Improper conservatorship venue does not deprive a California superior court of fundamental jurisdiction or void its orders.
- Without a requested statement of decision, an appellate court presumes the trial court made all findings needed to support its conservator-removal ruling.
- Exclusion of an investigator's report or visitation messages was not prejudicial where the same substance came in through witness testimony.
- Failure to designate an expert and submit the required declaration mandated exclusion of the expert's opinion testimony.
- Constitutional challenges to visitation costs were forfeited on appeal for lack of supporting legal authority.
Why It Matters
The unpublished decision shows how appellate burdens—an incomplete record, no requested statement of decision, unsupported venue assertions, and uncited constitutional authority—combined to defeat D.T.'s challenges, and it distinguishes a superior court's fundamental jurisdiction over a conservatorship from objections to the county where the case was heard. The court affirmed the trial court's orders, including denial of removal and the modified visitation conditions, and awarded costs to the conservators.