Conservatorship of S.M.
Objector and appellant S.M. challenges the superior courts order granting the public conservators petition for reappointment of conservatorship over her under the Lanterman-Petris-Short Act (Welfare and Institutions Code, 5000 et seq.).[1] First, S.M. argues that substantial evidence does not support the courts determination that she was presently unable to provide herself with food, clothing and shelter, and so was gravely disabled as defined in section 5008, subdivision (h). Second, S.M. argues that substantial evidence does not support the courts determination that she is gravely disabled under the factors set forth in Conservatorship of Guerrero (1999) 69 Cal.App.4th 442 (Guerrero). Third, S.M. contends that, because California is a community property state, the court improperly shifted to her the burden to prove she had verified third party assistance for food, shelter and clothing, and thus the finding of grave disability was in error. As discussed below, Court conclude the superior court did not err, and so affirm the ruling that S.M. was gravely disabled.
Comments on Conservatorship of S.M.