Conservatorship of R.F. CA3

Opinion

Filed 8/18/26 Conservatorship of R.F. CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 and Estate of R.F. C103931

SACRAMENTO COUNTY PUBLIC GUARDIAN, (Super. Ct. No. 24MH002656)

Petitioner and Respondent,

v.

R.F., Objector and Appellant.

Objector and appellant R.F. appeals from a judgment imposing a conservatorship on him under the Lanterman-Petris-Short Act (LPS or LPS Act) pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 5350 et seq. (Statutory citations that follow are to the Welfare and Institutions Code unless otherwise stated.) The trial court appointed respondent Sacramento County Public Guardian (Public Guardian) as R.F.’s conservator after a court trial. On appeal, R.F. contends reversal is required because the trial court failed to obtain a knowing and intelligent waiver of his right to a jury trial. Because the one-year LPS Act conservatorship has terminated by operation of law, we dismiss the appeal as moot.

FACTS AND HISTORY OF THE PROCEEDINGS Dr. Damanvir Garcha, medical director of the Sacramento County Mental Health Treatment Center, diagnosed R.F. with schizoaffective disorder, bipolar-type. The trial court granted the appointment of a temporary LPS conservator on October 4, 2024. R.F.

2

had been transferred to the psychiatric facility under section 5150 after the trial court determined that he was incompetent to stand trial for a misdemeanor and ordered R.F. evaluated for an LPS conservatorship. R.F. was found homeless and walking around public areas when he was arrested. R.F. was disoriented to the point where he did not know where he was in the United States, could not articulate the reason for his coming to the treatment center, and did not understand the circumstances of his initial arrest for violating his mother’s restraining order for the third time. R.F. stated that he had not been taking medication “because I don’t like taking psychiatric medications.”

On October 8, 2024, the Public Guardian petitioned for appointment as LPS conservator of R.F. The citation to R.F. to appear at a hearing on the petition included as its final sentence: “You have the right to a jury trial if you wish.” At a conference on December 31, 2024, counsel for R.F. initially stated—before R.F. joined the conference remotely—that, “I think he is asking for a bench trial,” adding, “We can clarify when we bring him in.” When R.F. joined the conference, the trial court inquired of R.F.’s counsel whether he “is requesting a bench trial?” Counsel for the Public Guardian responded, “That’s correct, your Honor.” The trial court set a date for a bench trial. R.F. interjected, “Why would I need a bench trial? I don’t think I need anybody else’s opinion. I don’t think I need conservatorship.” The trial court did not advise R.F. of his right to a jury trial or ask him if he waived that right.

On March 3, 2025, after a contested trial, the trial court found R.F. to be gravely disabled as a result of a mental disorder. The trial court placed R.F. in a one-year conservatorship and imposed special disabilities, restricting him from refusing medical treatment related to his grave disability, refusing routine medical treatment, entering into contracts, having a driver’s license, and possessing a firearm.

On May 29, 2025, R.F. filed a request for permission to file a notice of appeal under the constructive filing doctrine, which this court granted. The case was not fully briefed until May 4, 2026. On March 3, 2026, the conservatorship terminated by

3

operation of law, one year from the date of the order appointing the conservator. (§ 5361, subd. (a) [“Conservatorship initiated pursuant to this chapter shall automatically terminate one year after the appointment of the conservator by the superior court”].)

We deferred ruling on and now deny the Public Guardian’s requests for judicial notice of (1) the January 27, 2026, petition for renewal of R.F.’s conservatorship; and (2) the February 24, 2026, minute order renewing R.F.’s conservatorship, both offered to demonstrate that the present appeal is moot. Because LPS conservatorships terminate automatically in one year by operation of law, judicial notice of these orders is unnecessary to resolution of the appeal.

DISCUSSION

R.F. contends the trial court erred in granting the LPS conservatorship because he was not advised on the record of his right to a jury trial. He further contends that his appeal should not be moot because an appellate court has discretion to review a moot case that raises important issues likely to recur while evading review. R.F. notes that in conservatorship proceedings “timeframes are very short” and asserts “he was not afforded the most basic right to a trial by jury in 2025.”

The challenged conservatorship ended on March 3, 2026, rendering R.F.’s appeal moot. (Conservatorship of K.P. (2021) 11 Cal.5th 695, 705, fn. 3.) As the Supreme Court has observed, “[t]his problem frequently arises because a conservatorship’s duration is short, compared to the appellate process.” (Ibid.) However, even when an appeal has become moot, “courts may exercise their ‘inherent discretion’ to reach the merits of the dispute.” (In re D.P. (2023) 14 Cal.5th 266, 282.) “As a rule, courts will generally exercise their discretion to review a moot case when ‘the case presents an issue of broad public interest that is likely to recur,’ ‘when there may be a recurrence of the controversy between the parties,’ or ‘when a material question remains for the court’s determination.’ ” (Ibid; see also Conservatorship of John L. (2010) 48 Cal.4th 131,

4

142 & fn. 2 [exercising discretion to consider whether trial court violated conservatee’s constitutional rights by holding a conservatorship hearing in his absence]; Conservatorship of Joseph W. (2011) 199 Cal.App.4th 953, 960, 962 [exercising discretion to consider appeal of conservatorship order where conservatee argued trial court erred by interpreting his request for a hearing on a conservatorship petition as a request for a court trial]; but see Conservatorship of K.Y. (2024) 100 Cal.App.5th 985, 988-989 [noting court’s discretion to resolve moot appeals on the merits but declining to do so].)

In this instance, we conclude there is no issue of continuing public concern likely to evade review, because the LPS Act expressly requires the trial court to advise proposed conservatees of their right to jury trial. The LPS Act incorporates Probate Code section 1828, subdivision (a), which provides that “the court shall inform the proposed conservatee” of various matters, including “the right ... to have the matter of the establishment of the conservatorship tried by jury[.]” (Prob. Code, § 1828, subd. (a)(6); § 5350; see also Conservatorship of C.O. (2021) 71 Cal.App.5th 894, 908 (C.O.) [interpreting Prob. Code, § 1828, subd. (a)(6) as “requir[ing] a trial court to personally advise a proposed conservatee of his [or her] jury trial right”].) There is a split of authority on whether a trial court must obtain a personal, on-the-record waiver of the jury trial right. (See K.R. v. Superior Court (2022) 80 Cal.App.5th 133, 143 (K.R.); compare Conservatorship of Heather W. (2016) 245 Cal.App.4th 378, 383-384 [holding personal waiver required], with C.O., supra, 71 Cal.App.5th at p. 911 [absent certain circumstances, counsel may validly waive conservatee’s jury trial right].) The decisions agree, however, “that a trial court must personally advise a person of the statutory right to a jury trial in LPS proceedings.” (K.R., at p. 143; Prob. Code, § 1828, subd. (a)(6).)

Accordingly, we decline to exercise our discretion to review the merits of R.F.’s appeal.

5

DISPOSITION

The appeal is dismissed as moot.

/s/ HULL, Acting P. J.

We concur:

/s/ MAURO, J.

/s/ FEINBERG, J.