Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
The Public Guardian of Contra Costa County petitioned for an LPS Act conservatorship over N.G.'s person on December 2, 2025, alleging grave disability from a mental disorder. A temporary conservator was appointed the same day. The petition followed a finding that N.G. was incompetent to stand trial on misdemeanor charges and a referral for a conservatorship investigation. After a continuance to obtain medical records, N.G. waived a jury trial and a court trial began on December 30.
Psychiatrist Shahbaz Khan diagnosed schizoaffective disorder, bipolar type. He testified that N.G. lacked insight, would not consistently take medication without supervision, and could not make rational plans for food, clothing and shelter. Deputy conservator Jamie Flores described disorganized responses during assessments. N.G.'s sister-in-law Traci G. recounted chaotic and delusional behavior when N.G. was not taking medication. The Public Guardian also introduced records. N.G. testified that she did not need a conservatorship and described proposed arrangements for housing and support.
On January 6, 2026, the trial court found N.G. gravely disabled and granted the petition. Its section 5357 disabilities included restrictions on driving, firearms, most contracts and medical decisions concerning her grave disability, including refusal of psychotropic medication. It designated a secured Mental Health Rehabilitation Center as the least restrictive appropriate placement. N.G.'s January 12 notice of appeal preceded the written order granting the petition and appointing a conservator by two days; the Court of Appeal treated the notice as filed immediately after that order.
The Court’s Holding
N.G.'s appointed appellate counsel followed Conservatorship of Ben C. (2007) 40 Cal.4th 529: counsel reviewed the record, found no arguable issues, filed a brief setting out the applicable facts and law, provided N.G. a copy, and informed her she could file a supplemental brief within 30 days and that the appeal might be dismissed if she did not. N.G. filed no supplemental brief. Although not required to review the record independently, the Court of Appeal exercised its discretion to do so.
After independent review, the Court of Appeal concluded there were no arguable issues. It noted N.G. was present and represented by able counsel at trial, waived her jury trial right after being advised of her rights, and that the evidence supported the trial court's decision—Khan's opinion that N.G. would not consistently take her medications if released, risking decompensation; Flores's testimony that she could not provide a coherent plan for food, clothing, and shelter if not conserved; and Traci G.'s account of her chaotic, disorganized, delusional behavior when unmedicated. The trial court also carefully reviewed hospital records after ruling on objections, and N.G. was afforded the right to present evidence and testify.
Considering the applicable burdens of proof and standards of review, the Court of Appeal held the decision was supported by substantial evidence, citing Conservatorship of S.A. (2020) 57 Cal.App.5th 48, 54 (petitioner must prove the conservatee is gravely disabled beyond a reasonable doubt) and People v. Garica (2024) 99 Cal.App.5th 1048, 1054 (clear and convincing evidence required for an involuntary medication order). The order granting the LPS Act conservatorship petition was affirmed.
Key Takeaways
- The Court of Appeal affirmed an LPS Act conservatorship after appointed counsel filed a Ben C. no-issues brief and N.G. declined to file a supplemental brief.
- Although dismissal was permitted, the Court of Appeal exercised its discretion to independently review the record and found no arguable issues.
- The grave-disability finding was supported by substantial evidence, including expert psychiatric testimony about medication noncompliance and the inability to plan for food, clothing, and shelter.
- The Court of Appeal considered the applicable burdens of proof—beyond a reasonable doubt for grave disability and clear and convincing evidence for the involuntary medication order—in finding the decision supported by substantial evidence.
- The conservatorship included section 5357 disabilities restricting N.G.'s ability to possess a driver's license or firearm, enter most contracts, and refuse psychotropic medications.
Why It Matters
The decision applies Ben C. to a conservatorship appeal in which appointed counsel identified no arguable issue and the conservatee filed no supplemental brief. The Court of Appeal elected independent review rather than dismissal. It distinguished the trial-level proof burdens from appellate substantial-evidence review and affirmed on the record of expert testimony, observations, medical records and the opportunity for N.G. to present evidence.