Court Opinion

ID: 9389213
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-04-24 21:02:55.438262+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:18:25.923418
License: Public Domain

Filed 4/24/23 Conservatorship of J.G. CA1/1
                  NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or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 ONE

 Conservatorship of the Person of J.G.

 PUBLIC GUARDIAN OF CONTRA                                               A165316
 COSTA COUNTY,
                                                                         (Contra Costa County
             Plaintiff and Respondent,                                    Super. Ct. No. MSP-10-00060)
 v.
 J.G.,
             Defendant and Appellant.

         After a jury found that she continued to be gravely disabled, J.G.
appealed from the superior court’s order reappointing the Public Guardian of
Contra Costa County (Public Guardian) as the conservator of her person
pursuant to the Lanterman-Petris-Short Act (LPS Act).1 J.G.’s appellate
counsel filed an opening brief raising no arguable issues and asking this court
to exercise its discretion to independently review the record (People v. Wende
(1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende)) or, “at a minimum,” to conduct the level of
review prescribed for conservatorship matters in Conservatorship of Ben C.
(2007) 40 Cal.4th 529, 544 & fn. 6 (Ben C.). In accordance with Ben C., J.G.

        Welfare and Institutions Code, section 5000 et seq. All section
         1

references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code unless otherwise
specified.

                                                               1
was provided with a copy of the opening brief and informed of her right to file
a supplemental brief; she has not done so.
      As appellate counsel acknowledges, a Wende review is only available in
a first appeal of right from a criminal conviction. (Ben C., supra, 40 Cal.4th
at pp. 543–544; People v. Serrano (2012) 211 Cal.App.4th 496, 501; People v.
Taylor (2008) 160 Cal.App.4th 304, 312.) However, we have recently
dismissed three prior appeals in this matter as moot. (Conservatorship of
J.G. (Aug. 24, 2022, A162724) [dism. ord.]; Conservatorship of J.G. (Aug. 18,
2021, A160321) [unpub. opn.]; Conservatorship of J.G. (July 6, 2020,
A157322) [dism. ord.].) Given the “private interests at stake” and the
“restraints upon physical freedom and personal autonomy” at issue, we have
conducted a Wende review in this instance. (Ben C., at p. 545 (dis. opn. of
George, C.J.), pp. 543–544, fn. 7.) Our independent review of the record
having disclosed no arguable issues, we affirm the reappointment order.

                               BACKGROUND
      J.G. (born in 1975) has been conserved since 2010. Prior to that time,
she had over 210 mental health contacts with Contra Costa County. She
began abusing drugs at 13 years of age, including crack, methamphetamine,
LSD, alcohol, and marijuana. J.G. is wheelchair bound due to hip dysplasia
from a car accident, which complicates her level of care. On February 25,
2022, the Public Guardian filed a petition for reappointment as conservator
for J.G. under the LPS Act. In April 2022, J.G. requested a jury trial to
determine whether she remained gravely disabled. The evidence adduced at
the trial—held over two days on May 23 and 24, 2022—included the
following:
      Andrew Bove testified as the deputy conservator assigned to J.G’s case
for the past five months. When Mr. Bove visited J.G., she admitted to

                                       2
hearing menacing voices at her current and previous facility, including
“voices belonging to others outside of herself in the walls of the facility” and
voices “crying out over and over black magic witchcraft.” She also exhibited
drug-seeking behavior. J.G. did not believe she had a psychotic problem. She
stated she may have a split personality— referencing being a Gemini—and
admitted possibly being bipolar and possibly being schizophrenic when under
the influence of LSD. In Mr. Bove’s opinion, J.G. did not have a viable plan
for food, clothing, or shelter if released. For instance, she planned to make
money as a model and with her writings and artwork, which he did not find
feasible. During the course of their conversation, J.G.’s thoughts would
wander and break off onto unrelated topics. This attribute made it difficult
for her to organize her thoughts or execute a plan towards a particular goal.
      Dr. Michael Levin testified, over objection, as an expert in psychiatry
and grave disability. Although he had no specific certifications or formal
training in forensic psychiatry, he had worked for Contra Costa County
evaluating individuals for grave disability since 2013, had testified as an
expert in conservatorship matters approximately 200 times, and had been
involved as an evaluator in J.G.’s case four or five times since 2015. At his
most recent meeting with J.G.—the week before trial—she exhibited a lack of
insight into the extent of her mental illness. While acknowledging that
“maybe” she had a psychiatric disorder, “people had told her maybe it was
bipolar,” which she explained meant “she would pick up another person’s
personality.” J.G. also exhibited mood instability and reactivity, which could
lead to emotional outbursts and yelling. Her records were “replete” with such
instances. Finally, J.G. had trouble making decisions and dealing with
reality testing, which manifested as J.G. being unable to “assess what is real
and what is fantasy.”

                                        3
      Dr. Levin opined that J.G. suffered from schizoaffective disorder and
polysubstance abuse. He testified regarding a number of her recent drug-
seeking behaviors. As an example, in January 2022, J.G. went to the nursing
station and asked that the doctor be called for Ativan, methadone, and
codeine. When she was offered an authorized anti-anxiety medication
instead, she refused and had an outburst, banging the door with her
wheelchair, yelling, cursing, and making a throat-cutting gesture while
stating she would kill the staff member. With respect to her schizoaffective
disorder, J.G. was taking three antipsychotic medications, a mood stabilizer,
a sleep medication, and a medication for side effects. Nevertheless, she
continued to exhibit symptoms of mental illness. According to Dr. Levin,
J.G.’s records show that “she needs not only supervision, but that she needs
prompting to be compliant with her medication.”
      Dr. Levin testified that J.G.’s mental illness would negatively impact
her ability to procure and maintain shelter, both because she would have a
“hard time making a specific decision” and because her emotional
dysregulation would make it difficult for her to interact appropriately with
others when seeking a room. If J.G. were to stop taking her medication, it
“would make things even more difficult and worse” to maintain shelter. Dr.
Levin concluded that J.G. remained gravely disabled, noting that “her
presentation [was] consistent over the past six or seven years” and that “[s]he
really has not progressed or changed or improved over that period of time.”
      J.G. also testified, stating concerns about being given certain
medications and not having access to others. For example, she testified: “I’m
not supposed to be taking it, lithium, and my weight gain picked up. They
are illegally taking my blood twice a week. They may be selling my blood or
doing something with it because every week they are taking tubes of blood,

                                       4
and I feel like I’m getting weak.” She was in pain and wanted to ask the
judge to write her an order for Suboxone, which she described as “almost like
a non-narcotic because it’s a synthetic opiate.” She claimed that Dr. Levin
tried to “murder” her with “dangerous pills.” Further, J.G. could not
articulate a clear plan for shelter. She did not have anyone that she could
stay with and wanted to go to a board and care facility. On rebuttal, Dr.
Levin testified that he saw at least three different symptoms of
schizoaffective disorder in J.G.’s testimony: loose associations, where thought
processes become very tangential; delusions, such as the selling of her blood;
and paranoid ideations, including her statement that he was trying to harm
her with drugs when he was not even her prescribing psychiatrist.
      After argument, the jury found J.G. to be gravely disabled. The court
then imposed, over objection, the requested special disabilities, limiting J.G.’s
ability to possess firearms and to refuse treatment and medication with
respect to her grave disability. Finally, the court heard from J.G. regarding
her desire to be placed in a board and care facility. Thereafter, the court
designated J.G.’s current level of placement—a skilled nursing facility with
specialized treatment program—as the least restrictive placement for her.
This timely appeal followed.
                                 DISCUSSION
      Having reviewed the entire record, we have found no arguable issues
that require further briefing. In particular, substantial evidence supports the
jury’s finding of grave disability. (Conservatorship of O.B. (2020) 9 Cal.5th
989, 1011; Conservatorship of Carol K. (2010) 188 Cal.App.4th 123, 134; see
also Conservatorship of George H. (2008) 169 Cal.App.4th 157, 165–166
[evidence supporting grave disability finding also supported order imposing

                                        5
special disabilities].) Additionally, J.G. was at all times ably represented by
competent counsel who protected her rights and interests.
                                DISPOSITION
      The reappointment order is affirmed.

                                       6
                                               SWOPE, J.

WE CONCUR:

HUMES, P. J.

MARGULIES, J.

A165316N

 Judge of the San Mateo County Superior Court, assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant
to article VI, section 6 of the California Constitution.

                                           7