California Legal Brief

The Rule of Conservatorship of R.R. is that a conservatorship initiated pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 5361 begins upon "the appointment of the conservator by the superior court" on the date the court issues its reappointment order, not retroactively to the date of the prior conservatorship's automatic termination, under circumstances where conservatorship proceedings have not been completed by the automatic termination date and the court has ordered the conservatee held until proceedings are completed.

Appeal from order reappointing conservator in Superior Court, Shasta County.

Objector Appellant was R.R. — a 67-year-old woman with schizophrenia who was subject to conservatorship due to grave disability.

Petitioner Respondent was Shasta County Public Guardian — the public entity seeking reappointment as conservator of R.R.'s person and estate.

The suit sounded in conservatorship proceedings under the Lanterman-Petris-Short Act.

The key substantive facts leading to the suit were that R.R. was gravely disabled due to her mental health condition, lacking realistic plans to obtain food, clothing, and shelter, unable to comply with medication instructions without supervision, and requiring detention in a locked treatment facility. The prior conservatorship was set to expire on May 13, 2025, but the hearing was delayed due to court closure for emergency and R.R.'s refusal to meet with the evaluating psychologist. The court extended the conservatorship letters until June 3, 2025, when the reappointment hearing occurred.

The procedural result leading to the Appeal: The trial court granted the petition to reappoint conservator on June 3, 2025, ruling that R.R. was gravely disabled and beginning the new conservatorship term on the date of the court's order rather than on the date the prior conservatorship had automatically expired.

The key question(s) on Appeal: 1. Whether Dr. Mahoney's testimony about contents of R.R.'s medical records should have been excluded as hearsay under People v. Sanchez. 2. Whether the renewed conservatorship should have automatically begun on the day after the prior conservatorship expired rather than on the day of the reappointment hearing.

The Appellate Court held that (1) R.R. forfeited her hearsay objection by failing to object at trial and could not demonstrate ineffective assistance of counsel sufficient to excuse the forfeiture, and (2) section 5361 unambiguously provides that conservatorships begin upon appointment by the superior court, making the trial court's choice of the order date as the start date correct.

The case is inapplicable when the conservatee or their counsel timely objects to hearsay testimony at trial, when conservatorship proceedings are completed before the automatic termination date of a prior conservatorship, or when different statutory provisions govern the timing of conservatorship appointments.

The case leaves open whether a proposed conservatee has a constitutional right to effective assistance of counsel (as opposed to the statutory right), the scope of tactical reasons that might justify counsel's failure to object to expert hearsay testimony in other factual circumstances, and the application of these timing principles to conservatorship statutes other than section 5361.