Conservatorship of A.B.

Cite as A173111
Filed February 4, 2026
First District, Div. Two

By William Sias
County of Los Angeles, Office of County Counsel
https://wsias@counsel.lacounty.gov

Headnote: In a case decided under the Lanterman-Petris-Short (LPS) Act, there was substantial evidence that the appellant was presently gravely disabled and met the criteria for an involuntary medication order.

Summary: A.B., diagnosed with schizoaffective disorder, had been receiving mental health services since 2008. In October 2022, A.B.’s aggressive and threatening behavior caused the Public Guardian to file a petition for appointment of conservator. The trial court appointed the Public Guardian as the temporary conservator and granted authorization for involuntary medication. A.B. demanded a jury trial which ended in a mistrial. The conservatorship was established because A.B. submitted to the conservatorship and the Public Guardian abandoned the authorization for involuntary medication.

In November of 2023, a petition for reappointment was filed and an involuntary medication order was requested. The family home was identified as the appropriate placement. But A.B.’s insight and judgment regarding his mental illness remained poor. In the absence of an involuntary medication order, he would refuse medication and decompensate, i.e., his psychiatric symptoms would worsen. He had become actively symptomatic, physically aggressive and required the intervention of law enforcement. The conservatorship was renewed after a hearing with an involuntary medication order.

In November of 2024, the Public Guardian filed a petition for reappointment and requested an involuntary medication order. The trial court focused on A.B.’s lack of insight into his mental illness and history of decompensating due to not taking medication. Witnesses testified that A.B. never acknowledged that he had a mental illness, believed he did not need medication, and believed the medication was poison. A.B.’s mother testified to his mental health history. She explained that without a conservatorship and a mandatory medication order, A.B. could not live in the family residence. The trial court found that A.B. was gravely disabled and could not provide for his own shelter without a conservatorship and an involuntary medication order.

The appellate court found that although A.B. testified that he accepted his diagnosis and the need for medication, he demonstrated a lack of understanding of the history and severity of his mental illness. The trial court was not required to accept A.B.’s testimony, and the appellate court deferred to the trial court’s determination of A.B.’s credibility. The case illustrates A.B.’s effort to escape the relevance of the course of his personal history of, and lack of insight into, his mental illness, which is relevant to a finding of present grave disability.

https://www.courts.ca.gov/opinions/documents/A173111.PDF

Please note that the Court of Appeal may move this published opinion into its “archive” approximately 60 days following the opinion’s above filing date, at which time the above link will no longer be operative.