Opinion
F074535
06-20-2018
Conservatorship of the Person and Estate of YVONNE L. CODI HICKE, as Conservator, etc., Petitioner and Respondent, v. YVONNE L., Objector and Appellant.
Linda J. Zachritz, under appointment of the Court of Appeal, for Objector and Appellant. Colleen Carlson, County Counsel, and Risé Donlon, Deputy County Counsel, for Petitioner and Respondent.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115. (Super. Ct. No. 16GC0018)
OPINION
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Kings County. Jennifer Lee Giuliani, Judge. Linda J. Zachritz, under appointment of the Court of Appeal, for Objector and Appellant. Colleen Carlson, County Counsel, and Risé Donlon, Deputy County Counsel, for Petitioner and Respondent.
-ooOoo-
INTRODUCTION
After a contested hearing on May 27, 2016, appellant Yvonne L. was placed under a conservatorship with the Kings County Public Guardian (guardian or conservator) pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code sections 5008, subdivision (h)(1)(A), and 5358 of the Lanterman-Petris-Short Act. Yvonne L. contends the trial court improperly relied on hearsay evidence of the examining physician that she was unable to provide for her food, clothing, and shelter and argues her trial counsel was ineffective for failing to object to the doctor's hearsay testimony. The conservator responds Yvonne L.'s conservatorship is only for one year, terminated on May 27, 2017, and the appeal is now moot. We agree this case is moot, necessitating dismissal of the appeal.
All statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code unless otherwise designated.
The conservator also argues Yvonne L. filed her appeal more than 60 days after the trial court's judgment. At the conclusion of the conservatorship hearing on May 27, 2016, the trial court found the allegations in the petition to be true and appointed the guardian to be Yvonne L.'s conservator. Yvonne L. filed her notice of appeal on August 30, 2016, 95 days after the court's judgment. The notice of appeal was executed by Yvonne L. on July 21, 2016. On March 16, 2017, this court issued an order finding there was no proof of service in the record, and absent such proof of service, a notice of appeal can be filed within 180 days of the entry of judgment pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 8.104(a)(1)(C). County counsel again raises the timeliness of Yvonne L.'s notice of appeal in the responsive brief. We have already rejected this contention in our order of March 16, 2017, and reaffirm our prior order.
FACTS AND PROCEEDINGS
The guardian filed a petition on April 14, 2016, alleging Yvonne L. was gravely disabled pursuant to section 5008, subdivision (h)(1)(A) due to a severe mental illness and could not provide for her basic personal needs for food, clothing, and shelter. The guardian sought to take over as Yvonne L.'s conservator with limitations on her rights to operate a motor vehicle, enter into contracts, vote, refuse treatment related to her grave disability, refuse treatment for continuing medical conditions, and possess a firearm or other deadly weapon.
The conservatorship petition included the declaration of Dr. Abdolreza Saadabadi, a specialist in psychiatry, who had evaluated the patient and concluded she was unable to provide for her basic needs for food, clothing, or shelter, and unwilling to voluntarily accept treatment for her mental health disorder. She was also incapable of consenting to receiving antipsychotic medications. Dr. Saadabadi had personal, first-hand knowledge of Yvonne L.'s condition after evaluating her on April 12, 2016, and diagnosing her with schizoaffective disorder, bipolar type, and cannabis abuse. Dr. Saadabadi added that Yvonne L. was unable to shop for herself, could not eat food without assistance, was at times incoherent and unable to respond to external stimuli, was very paranoid, and suffered from disorganized thoughts. Yvonne L. had threatened other patients due to her paranoid thoughts and had a history of noncompliance with her medications when released into the community.
The trial court appointed a temporary conservator to oversee Yvonne L.'s personal and financial needs. Yvonne L. was also appointed counsel. A conservatorship hearing was held on the guardian's petition on May 27, 2016. David Rolfsema testified as the guardian's expert witness by stipulation of the parties. Although Rolfsema did not state his qualifications or training after the stipulation, an entry in the clerk's transcript lists him as a licensed clinical social worker.
Rolfsema stated he had reviewed the medical charts at a Merced hospital where Yvonne L. was being treated. Rolfsema also reviewed her medical records at Kings View hospital, the referring facility to the Merced hospital, and he also spoke with staff at the Merced hospital and Kings View. Rolfsema personally examined Yvonne L. and talked to her mother by phone. Rolfsema opined Yvonne L. had schizoaffective disorder because she suffered from delusions, frequent auditory hallucinations, disorganized thought processes, and bipolar type mood issues. Looking to how Yvonne L. came to have a conservatorship petition filed on her behalf, Rolfsema explained law enforcement had placed a section 5150 hold on her after she threatened neighbors. Yvonne L. was initially placed in Kaweah Delta Hospital for 18 days in December 2015 until early January 2016 and then went to an unsupervised room and board facility.
At the room and board, Yvonne L. was responsible for handling her own medications. She referred to one of her mental health medications as poison. Yvonne L.'s initial hospital treatment allowed her to recover enough so she was no longer gravely disabled and could go back into the community. A few months later at the beginning of April 2016, Yvonne L. was again placed on a section 5150 hold by police officers after she made threats to two residents at the room and board. Yvonne L. had stopped taking her medication, was delusional, and was taken to the emergency room.
Yvonne L. was released to her mother, who took her the next day to Kaweah Delta Hospital. Yvonne L. was delusional, agitated, exhibited disorganized thoughts, and was grandiose. A section 5250 hold was initiated, Yvonne L. was transferred to the hospital in Merced, and this conservatorship action was initiated. On a number of occasions, including when Rolfsema examined her, Yvonne L. denied she had any mental illness.
The proper treatment for Yvonne L. is medication addressing both her psychotic symptoms and her mood disorder. A low stress environment is helpful. Skills training in how to manage one's life, including managing medications, is also important to get patients out of institutions. Abstention from marijuana and methamphetamine is also necessary. Although this had been a problem for Yvonne L. in the past, she tested clean for marijuana and methamphetamine when she was brought to the emergency room in April.
Yvonne L. was receiving mood stabilizers and an antipsychotic medication. The medications help patients get their thoughts organized, have fewer auditory hallucinations, and reduce their delusions. Rolfsema thought the likelihood Yvonne L. would voluntarily participate in the medications prescribed to her was very low, although he acknowledged she would in the past voluntarily take one of her mood stabilizers. Yvonne L. told Rolfsema that once released from the hospital, she would consult a private doctor and continue to take her antipsychotic medication.
In the past, Yvonne L. had adjusted her prescribed medications on her own and chose to use both marijuana and methamphetamine. Yvonne L. had been evicted from several lodgings in the past for being grandiose, having paranoid delusions, and making threats. Rolfsema was concerned the same behavior would recur in Yvonne L's current mental state and she would not be able to provide for her food, clothing, and shelter.
Rolfsema explained Yvonne L. had her shelter and food provided at the room and board facility, but still could not properly medicate herself, leading to delusions and mood disorders. In the less structured environment of the room and board facility, Yvonne L. believed law enforcement conspired against her to prevent her from being a nurse with the Department of Corrections where she had been employed at one time. They were also conspiring to prevent her from being Sarah Palin's bodyguard in Los Angeles. Yvonne L. believed they had stolen "her motherhood" and described herself as being "a civilian POW."
Yvonne L.'s thoughts had become too disorganized. In her current setting, Yvonne L. was eating properly, taking her medications, and going to group therapy sessions. Yvonne L. was showing improvement in a structured setting. At this time, Rolfsema thought Yvonne L. needed the supervision of a conservator, and if released immediately back into the community, she would quickly revert to her delusional state without a more structured environment.
The least structured environment for Yvonne L. at the time of the hearing was a locked facility, though once she was more stable she could be discharged to a lower level of supervision. Yvonne L. was not capable of giving informed consent for the treatment of her mental illness. Although numerous doctors had given Yvonne L. the same mental health diagnosis, she was in denial about her mental health. Rolfsema opined Yvonne L. was not capable of entering into a contract, and she would be a danger to herself or others if she were to drive a motor vehicle or possess a weapon. Yvonne L. was receiving disability income from social security.
Yvonne L. testified she received disability income of $1,345 from social security distributed to her by the public guardian. Yvonne L. thought she had been misdiagnosed for back pain caused by fibromyalgia and hypertension, which led to four back surgeries. Yvonne L. was prescribed morphine and Norco for her back pain and had a medical marijuana card. Yvonne L. explained she used marijuana for her back pain.
If not in a conservatorship, Yvonne L.'s first choice for housing would be to talk to an Army Reservist. If she could not live on an Army base, her second choice would be to live independently. Yvonne L. had never served in the military but had been an Army wife. According to Yvonne L., she could live with her five roommates but she did not want to give out information about them because "there was a hit placed on me and my family and that's the reason why people are not here testifying." One of Yvonne L.'s roommates and providers is her sister; another is her father. Yvonne L. owned a vehicle and was able to drive herself to her appointments. She would also be able to provide herself with new clothing and food.
Yvonne L. testified she did not believe she had a mental disorder and believed she had been misdiagnosed. Yvonne L. explained she did not know what to believe. She also did not understand why she had been detained, and she denied making threats to anyone. One of Yvonne L.'s doctors had a nurse practitioner in his office who discontinued all of her psychiatric medications. When asked why she thought her motherhood had been stolen, Yvonne L. explained she had seen a gynecologist "because I bled to and from my providers [sic] just because of the misdiagnoses. And the last time I checked I was able to conceive. I don't know about now because of the multiple rapes that occurred. And, supposedly, dog semen was placed in me, so I don't know if—I'll be 40 [this month]." Yvonne L. did not know if her reproductive system was still working.
Yvonne L. said that without a conservatorship, she would be able to take her medications. If she thought she no longer needed her medications, Yvonne L. said she would see her primary care provider to get the right scans and examinations to rule out brain disorders. Yvonne L. agreed with the part of her diagnosis that she suffered from depression. When her counsel asked why Yvonne L. should not be in a conservatorship, she explained because "the last case like this was 10 to 15 years ago. And I was also told by when my firearm was confiscated that one of your colleagues was not going to be able to represent me because she wouldn't get a fair trial for her clients here in this county. So I'd like the courts to know the truth on what I've had to deal with and how my careers have been changed and, maybe, my majors will be switched so I don't feel so alone and being victimized."
At the conclusion of the hearing on May 27, 2016, the trial court found the allegations in the petition to be true and appointed the guardian to be Yvonne L.'s conservator.
DISCUSSION
On appeal, Yvonne L. asserts that although the appeal is technically moot because the conservatorship has ended, she should have a decision on the merits of a claim with issues likely to recur. She claims the expert's opinion relied on case-specific hearsay in violation of the California Supreme Court's holding in People v. Sanchez (2016) 63 Cal.4th 665. Yvonne L. further asserts that to the extent her attorney's failure to object to each instance of hearsay forfeited the claim for appeal, the absence of any objection constitutes ineffective assistance of counsel. County counsel, representing the conservator, disputes these arguments, arguing the appeal must be dismissed as moot after the order under review expires. We agree with the conservator and do not reach the remaining claims.
Generally, appellate review is limited to actual controversies. A case involving abstract or academic questions of law do not present justiciable controversies. (People v. DeLong (2002) 101 Cal.App.4th 482, 486.) Actions originally based on a justiciable controversy cannot be maintained on appeal if the questions presented have become moot by subsequent acts or events. Reversal in such a case is without practical effect and the appeal is usually dismissed. (Ibid.)
An appeal should be dismissed as moot when the occurrence of events makes it impossible for the reviewing court to grant an appellant any effective relief. (Cucamongans United for Reasonable Expansion v. City of Rancho Cucamonga (2000) 82 Cal.App.4th 473, 479.) Since the order appealed from here has expired, resolving the issues presented would not confer any effective relief to the parties. There are three discretionary exceptions to the rule against adjudicating moot claims. A reviewing court may decide an appeal on the merits when: (1) the case presents an issue of broad public interest likely to recur; (2) when there can be a recurrence of the controversy between the parties; and (3) a material issue or question remains for the reviewing court's determination. (Santa Monica Baykeeper v. City of Malibu (2011) 193 Cal.App.4th 1538, 1547-1548; Cucamongans, supra, at pp. 479-480.)
We are aware of our discretionary authority but decline to exercise it under the circumstances of this case. Assuming arguendo that evidentiary errors occurred in the trial court's acceptance of the expert's testimony, we will not presume they are likely to recur in the future. Instead, we presume that, going forward, the court and counsel will be aware of Sanchez's reasoning and holding, and to the extent it is applicable, apply its holding accordingly. (People v. Sanchez, supra, 63 Cal.4th at pp. 674-686).
While we do not reach the merits of Yvonne L.'s argument concerning the conservator's reliance on case-specific hearsay, we note the expert here observed Yvonne L. at the hospital prior to the hearing and had prior contacts with her in the context of her ongoing mental illness. Without an extensive survey, some of the evidence the expert relied upon in concluding Yvonne L. needed a conservatorship was the kind of evidence an expert may rely upon in forming an opinion pursuant to Evidence Code sections 801 and 802. Finally, as the conservator points out, Yvonne L.'s delusional thinking was clearly exhibited during her hearing testimony.
Although the Sanchez ruling has been applied to cases other than criminal cases, the scope of its holding is more limited in noncriminal and quasi-civil proceedings. (See People v. Bona (2017) 15 Cal.App.5th 511, 520 [confrontation clause rights in civil mentally disordered offender hearings not as extensive as in criminal proceedings]; Conservatorship of K.W. (2017) 13 Cal.App.5th 1274, 1285 [to the extent confrontation issues exist in conservatorship proceedings, expert may still rely on proper hearsay to form opinion pursuant to Evid. Code, § 801]; People v. Jeffrey G. (2017) 13 Cal.App.5th 501, 509-511; People v. Roa (2017) 11 Cal.App.5th 428, 442-443, 446-453 [in sexually violent predator proceedings, expert may rely on patient's hearsay description of symptoms to render opinion pursuant to Evid. Code, § 801, as well as direct examination of the patient pursuant to Evid. Code, § 802]; People v. Burroughs (2016) 6 Cal.App.5th 378, 404-407 [same]). --------
DISPOSITION
The appeal is dismissed as moot.
/s/_________
PEÑA, J. WE CONCUR: /s/_________
POOCHIGIAN, Acting P.J. /s/_________
SMITH, J.