Filed 9/11/26 Conservatorship of H.S. CA3
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
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 This opinion has not been certified for publication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
THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT
(Sacramento)
Conservatorship of the Person of H.S. C104760
SACRAMENTO COUNTY PUBLIC GUARDIAN, (Super. Ct. No. 11PR00005)
Petitioner and Respondent,
v.
H.S.,
Objector and Appellant.
In renewing appellant H.S.’s conservatorship, the trial court found appellant’s
current placement to be appropriate. Appellant challenges that finding, arguing it is
unsupported by substantial evidence. He also contends the court’s hearing on the issue of
his placement violated due process. We affirm.
BACKGROUND
In 2011, the trial court found appellant to be a gravely disabled person and ordered
the appointment of a conservator of his person and estate.
In 2025, the Sacramento County Public Guardian (the Public Guardian) petitioned
to renew the conservatorship. The trial court granted the petition but set a hearing
regarding the issue of appellant’s placement.
1
At the hearing, the parties stipulated that Leslie Langley, a nurse practitioner, was
an expert in psychiatry. She testified that appellant has schizoaffective disorder and
reports hearing voices. Appellant gets agitated when he is around his peers and is not
willing to cooperate with his therapist. When asked if she believed appellant was ready
“to be discharged from his current placement to a less restrictive placement,” she
responded, “No. He’s not … he’s still dealing with his psychotic symptoms, and because
yet we have not find any medications that is, you know, helping to manage these
symptoms.” Langley explained that the plan was to work on identifying medication
adjustments that may alleviate his psychotic symptoms, noting “it takes time to see the
results, the benefits of the medication.” Langley said appellant could be ready for
discharge at some point in the future with the right combination of medicine because the
medication “could have his psychosis more under control … he is now getting too
overwhelmed by it, because that’s the issue to it. He gets overwhelmed, and that’s what
[sic] he gets agitated because he’s not able to control himself.” When asked whether it
was her opinion that appellant is in the least restrictive environment that was necessary
for him, Langley responded that appellant was “in the right facility right now, because we
[are] providing the care that he needs and also monitoring symptoms.” When asked
whether a particular medication had been effective in treating appellant’s symptoms, she
answered “[t]he irritability is still … with his peers, it’s still reported by the staff.”
Appellant testified that he did not like living at his present facility anymore
because he did not get along with his peers. He said he “need[ed] a different
environment, surroundings.”
2
The trial court admitted into evidence progress notes from appellant’s current
placement.1 One progress note discussed how appellant did not want to “watch tv with
the rest of the group due to believing a demon will come out of the tv.” The note stated
that this behavior put appellant “at risk of self-isolation due to them not being able to
integrate with the rest of the group.” Another note indicated appellant was worried his
peers would die because they were eating poison. The note states that this behavior
caused appellant “to isolate away from their peers and heightened distress.”
The trial court found “based on all the evidence and review of the records, the–
unfortunately, [appellant] is still suffering from delusions. One note fairly recently, from
last month, along with what was mentioned in argument, includes demons coming out of
the television, and that was one of the reasons why he was getting into altercations with
his fellow patients. [¶] And the–there seem to be challenging difficulties managing his
medication, his antipsychotic medication, and that’s unfortunate because that seems to be
prolonging the reason why he needs to be there. [¶] And–but as far as for today’s
purposes, without getting too much into the ballpark of the experts, I am finding that the
placement is appropriate at God’s Love Outreach Ministries.”
Appellant timely appealed.
DISCUSSION
Appellant argues there is no substantial evidence to support the trial court’s ruling
that he was in an appropriate placement. We disagree.
1 These progress notes, admitted as Exhibit No. 1 at the hearing, were returned to
the Public Guardian following trial, and thus were not included in the record on appeal
transmitted by the trial court. On July 27, 2026, we ordered the Public Guardian to
transmit the exhibit to this court and to counsel for appellant, pursuant to California Rules
of Court, rule 8.224(d). The Public Guardian did so, and county counsel filed a
declaration averring that the transmitted exhibit was a true and correct copy of Exhibit
No. 1 from appellant’s hearing.
3
Welfare and Institutions Code section 5358, subdivision (c)(1), states that, in
deciding the placement for a conservatee, “the court shall determine the least restrictive
and most appropriate … placement for the conservatee.” “An appellate court reviews the
trial court’s factual findings to determine if there is substantial evidence to support them,
and will sustain the trial court’s factual findings if there is substantial evidence to support
those findings, even if there exists evidence to the contrary.” (Conservatorship of
Amanda B. (2007) 149 Cal.App.4th 342, 347.) “ ‘In making the determination [regarding
substantive evidence], 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.’ ” (Id. at pp. 347-348.)
Here, substantial evidence supports the trial court’s finding that appellant’s
placement at God’s Love Outreach Ministries was appropriate. The expert testified
appellant was still experiencing psychotic symptoms; that he was not yet ready to be
discharged; and that he was “in the right facility right now” while the facility continued
to adjust his medications. Appellant essentially takes issue with the fact that the court
“fail[ed] to even mention the peer conflict in its ruling.” But the court was not required
to credit appellant’s testimony on this point. Even if the court credited appellant’s
testimony, the court could have reasonably inferred that appellant’s agitation with his
peers was due to his psychosis, and thus this issue would have existed at any placement.
Appellant also fails to establish that his peer conflicts rendered the placement not
“appropriate” under the relevant statute.
Appellant also contends the trial court deprived him of “a fundamentally fair
hearing guaranteed by the Due Process Clause to the 5th and 14th Amendments to the
U.S. Constitution.” Other than this conclusory assertion, he provides no explanation for
why the hearing was not “fundamentally fair” and no legal argument specific to this
point. We thus deem any due process claim distinct from his substantial evidence claim
4
to be forfeited. (People v. Guzman (2019) 8 Cal.5th 673, 683, fn. 7 [appellant forfeited
due process claim by failing to “develop the argument”].)
DISPOSITION
The trial court order placing appellant at God’s Love Outreach Ministries is
affirmed.
\s\
KRAUSE, J.
We concur:
\s\
RENNER, Acting P. J.
\s\
FEINBERG, J.
5