Court Opinion

ID: 9366081
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-01-25 20:03:20.539047+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:15:48.848524
License: Public Domain

Filed 1/25/23 Conservatorship of Jacob D. CA1/5
                  NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or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

                                      FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT

                                                  DIVISION FIVE

 Conservatorship of the Person of
 JACOB D.

 CONTRA COSTA COUNTY PUBLIC
 GUARDIAN, as Conservator, etc.,                                         A163694
           Petitioner and Respondent,
 v.                                                                      (Contra Costa County
 JACOB D.,                                                               Super. Ct. No. MSP21-00711)

           Objector and Appellant.

         Jacob D. appeals from a September 14, 2021 order of conservatorship
appointing the Contra Costa County Public Guardian as conservator of his
person under the Lanterman-Petris-Short Act (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 5000
et seq.) for a one-year period. Jacob argues substantial evidence did not
support the trial court’s finding that he was gravely disabled. The order
expired on September 14, 2022, before briefing was complete in the appeal.
Jacob acknowledges that his claim is now moot but asks us to consider his
appeal notwithstanding its mootness. We decline to do so and dismiss the
appeal as moot.

                                                               1
                                BACKGROUND
      Under the Lanterman-Petris-Short Act, “[a] conservator of the person
. . . may be appointed for a person who is gravely disabled as a result of a
mental health disorder . . . .” (§ 5350.) A person is “ ‘gravely disabled’ ” if the
“person, as a result of a mental health disorder, is unable to provide for his or
her basic personal needs for food, clothing, or shelter.” (§ 5008, subd.
(h)(1)(A).)
      On May 13, 2021, the public guardian petitioned to be appointed
Jacob’s conservator under section 5350. The petition was supported by a
declaration from a psychiatrist at San Jose Behavioral Health Hospital,
where Jacob had been admitted. The psychiatrist’s declaration stated that
Jacob presented as delusional, anxious, and paranoid. Prior to being
admitted to San Jose Behavioral Health Hospital, Jacob reportedly refused to
eat, drink, bathe, or brush his teeth. He lost weight and complained of mouth
pain, but he refused medical treatment. While at the facility, he refused to
change clothes or shower. Jacob did not believe he needed treatment for
mental illness and believed his mother made up lies about him to have him
admitted to the hospital.
      Jacob contested the petition and agreed to a bench trial. At trial, the
public guardian presented testimony from Jacob’s mother; his stepfather; and
an expert clinical psychologist who interviewed Jacob, reviewed his medical
records, and spoke with Jacob’s mother and social worker. Jacob’s mother
and stepfather testified that Jacob was living independently in a dirty
apartment and that he would not bathe or shower, was not eating enough,
and lost weight. Jacob was evicted from his apartment after he accidently
started a fire in the microwave. The public guardian’s expert witness
diagnosed Jacob with schizophrenia. She opined that Jacob was gravely

                                         2
disabled because he could not provide for his food, clothing or shelter needs,
and that he would not participate in mental health treatment, including
taking medications, unless forced to do so.
      Jacob testified that he did not need a conservatorship. He testified that
he showers and changes his clothing but not every day. He believed his
mother lied about him. Jacob testified that he had a great appetite. He
admitted he lost about 10 pounds because he had pain while swallowing, but
the pain had gone away. He did not like taking medications and did not
believe he needed them.
      The trial court found that Jacob was gravely disabled beyond a
reasonable doubt and appointed the public guardian conservator of Jacob for
a one-year period commencing September 14, 2021.
                                  DISCUSSION
      The appellate court’s duty is “ ‘ “to decide actual controversies by a
judgment which can be carried into effect, and not to give opinions upon moot
questions or abstract propositions, or to declare principles or rules of law
which cannot affect the matter at issue in the case before it.” ’ ” (Eye Dog
Foundation v. State Board of Guide Dogs for the Blind (1967) 67 Cal.2d 536,
541.) “The pivotal question in determining if a case is moot is . . . whether
the court can grant the plaintiffs any effectual relief.” (Wilson & Wilson v.
City Council of Redwood City (2011) 191 Cal.App.4th 1559, 1574.) Jacob
acknowledges that his one-year conservatorship terminated on September 14,
2022, and that his appeal is now moot. However, he requests that the court
exercise its discretion to decide whether sufficient evidence supported the
trial court’s finding of grave disability.
      First, we agree that the appeal is moot. Jacob is no longer a
conservatee under the order appointing conservator from which he appeals,

                                         3
and therefore, even if we were to find reversible error, we are unable to grant
effective relief. Second, although Jacob asks us to exercise our discretion to
reach the merits, he does not argue that this case falls within one of the
recognized discretionary exceptions to the rule against deciding moot claims.
He argues only that it is difficult to resolve an appeal before the one-year
expiration of a conservatorship order and that the public guardian has not
requested dismissal based on mootness.
      We have discretion to reach the merits if (1) a case presents an issue of
broad public interest that is likely to recur while evading appellate review;
(2) there may be a recurrence of the controversy between the parties; or
(3) when a material question remains for the court’s determination. (In re
M.R. (2013) 220 Cal.App.4th 49, 56.) None of the exceptions applies here.
The only issue Jacob raises is sufficiency of the evidence. This is not an issue
of broad public interest that is likely to recur while evading review. Rather,
it is a fact-intensive inquiry specific to Jacob. Nor will there be a recurrence
of this controversy between the parties, which relates only to sufficiency of
the evidence to support the now expired order. No material question remains
for the court’s determination. None of the discretionary exceptions to the
mootness doctrine applies, and we decline Jacob’s request to reach the merits
of his claim.
                                DISPOSITION
      The appeal is dismissed as moot.

                                        4
                                                  _________________________
                                                  Jackson, P. J.

WE CONCUR:

_________________________
Burns, J.

_________________________
Wiseman, J.*

A163694/Contra Costa County Public Guardian v. Jacob D.

       *Retired Associate Justice of the Court of Appeal, Fifth Appellate
District, assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to article VI, section 6 of the
California Constitution.

                                              5