Filed 8/22/24 Conservatorship of M.C. CA2/6

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS

California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions 

not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion 

has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115. 

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION SIX

Conservatorship of the Person

of M.C.

2d Civil No. B330445

(Super. Ct. No. 56-2021-

00560735-PR-CP-OXN)

(Ventura County)

HSINHWEI JOSEPH CHOU,

 Petitioner and Appellant,

v.

PUBLIC GUARDIAN OF 

VENTURA COUNTY, as 

Conservator, etc.

 Objector and Respondent.

Appellant Hsinhwei Joseph Chou appeals from an order 

denying his petitions to remove the Ventura County Public 
2

Guardian (Public Guardian) as conservator of his mother, M.C.,

and instead appoint him successor conservator.

1 We affirm.2

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Appellant is one of M.C.’s five children. M.C. was 

diagnosed with a major neurocognitive disorder as defined in 

Probate Code section 2356.5, subdivision (a)(1). In December 

2021, appellant petitioned for appointment of conservator of M.C.

(person only), and the trial court appointed him temporary 

conservator with expiration in April 2022. 

The Ventura County court investigator later filed a report 

with the court. The report contained details of the investigator’s 

interviews and recommendations to the court. 

In May 2022, the trial court appointed the Ventura County 

Public Guardian as the permanent conservator of M.C. (person 

only). The court subsequently appointed the Public Guardian as 

conservator of M.C.’s estate. 

In May 2023, appellant petitioned to remove the Public 

Guardian as conservator of M.C. (person only) and to appoint him 

as successor conservator. Appellant alleged that M.C. was a 

93-year-old woman with “minor dementia” and that the court 

appointed the Public Guardian as conservator “due to family 

tragedy” and because “her relatives abandon[ed] her.” He also 

1 The public defender representing M.C. filed a joinder to 

the Public Guardian’s respondent brief. 

2 We grant respondent’s motion to augment filed May 9, 

2024. We deny appellant’s motion for judicial notice filed on July 

10, 2024, because we do not review documents not presented to 

the trial court. (Vons Companies, Inc. v. Seabest Foods, Inc. 

(1996) 14 Cal.4th 434, 444, fn. 3.) 
3

alleged M.C.’s relatives stole and concealed her money. 

Appellant declared that he was a “better fit conservator” than the 

Public Guardian because he could provide a better level of care, 

and that the costs of Tarzana Health and Rehabilitation Center, 

where M.C. resided, was high and the quality of care was “poor.” 

The Ventura County court investigator filed a second 

report, which contained details regarding M.C.’s status, 

descriptions of the investigator’s interviews, and 

recommendations to the court. 

After the hearing, the trial court denied appellant’s 

petitions and vacated the hearing on the petition for appointment 

of successor conservator. 

DISCUSSION

Appellant contends the trial court erred in denying the 

petitions to remove the Public Guardian as conservator and 

appoint him as successor conservator. We disagree. 

“The Probate Code authorizes appointment of a 

‘conservator of the person’ if clear and convincing evidence shows 

that the conservatee cannot provide properly for physical health, 

food, clothing or shelter needs; a ‘conservator of the estate’ may 

be appointed if the conservatee is substantially unable to manage 

financial resources, or resist fraud or undue influence. (§ 1801.)” 

(Conservatorship of B.C. (2016) 6 Cal.App.5th 1028, 1034.) A 

trial court’s decision regarding appointment of a conservator is 

reviewed for substantial evidence. (Conservatorship of Ramirez

(2001) 90 Cal.App.4th 390, 401.) “In making that determination, 

we view the entire record in the light most favorable to the trial 

court’s findings. [Citations.] We must resolve all conflicts in the 

evidence and draw all reasonable inferences in favor of the 

findings. [Citation.]” (Ibid.)
4

Substantial evidence supports the trial court’s orders. We 

reviewed the two confidential investigator’s reports and conclude

that the evidence therein is substantial to support the court’s 

rulings maintaining the Public Guardian as the conservator of 

M.C.’s person and estate. 

Furthermore, we have no reporter’s transcript of the 

hearing on the petitions to remove the Public Guardian as

conservator and appoint a successor conservator. It is appellant’s 

burden to show error. That includes providing an adequate 

record from which the claimed error may be demonstrated. The 

failure to present such a record supports affirmance of the trial 

court’s order. (Maria P. v. Riles (1987) 43 Cal.3d. 1281, 1295-

1296.) 

DISPOSITION

The judgment is affirmed. Respondent shall recover costs 

on appeal.

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED.

BALTODANO, J.

We concur:

GILBERT, P. J.

YEGAN, J.
Roger L. Lund, Judge

Superior Court County of Ventura

______________________________

Hsinhwei Joseph Chou, in pro. per., for Petitioner and 

Appellant. 

Tiffany N. North, County Counsel, Mitchell B. Davis, 

Assistant County Counsel, for Objector and Respondent.

Claudia Y. Bautista, Public Defender, and William Quest, 

Deputy Public Defender, for Conservatee.