Trusts and Estates

Conservatorship of O.B.

Please share:

Cite as S254938
Filed July 27, 2020
Supreme Court of California

By Daniel C. Kim
Weintraub Tobin Chediak Coleman Grodin Law Corporation

Headnote: Conservatorships ā€“ Findings Requiring Clear and Convincing Evidence ā€“ Standard of Review on Appeal Ā 

Summary: Where a trial court decision must be supported by clear and convincing evidence, on appeal the standard of review must reflect that heightened burden of proof.

O.B. had autism spectrum disorder. Her mother petitioned for a limited conservatorship. At trial, O.B. relied on the expert testimony of Dr. Khoie, who opined that O.B. was not a candidate for a conservatorship and had the potential to live independently with support, and on the testimony of Mr. Donati, the probate investigator who opined that he did not think the conservatorship would benefit O.B. In support of the petition O.B.ā€™s mother testified that O.B. needed significant assistance with daily tasks, could not care for herself, and was susceptible to undue influence by others. Two doctors also opined that a limited conservatorship was proper and that O.B. lacked capacity. The trial court found that, as required, clear and convincing evidence supported the imposition of the conservatorship, and granted the petition. The Court of Appeal, Second District, applying the ā€œsubstantial evidenceā€ standard of review, affirmed, stating that the testimony of one witness can constitute substantial evidence, and that the motherā€™s testimony alone was substantial evidence confirming the appellantā€™s inability to perform critical tasks.  The Court of Appeal stated that the ā€œclear and convincingā€ burden of proof is only for trial court use, and that it ā€œdisappearsā€ on appeal.

The Supreme Court reversed. The ā€œclear and convincingā€ burden, as opposed to the mere ā€œpreponderance of the evidenceā€ burden, applies at the trial court level where particularly important individual rights or interests are at stake. On review, however, the Courts of Appeal are split as to whether the ā€œsubstantial evidenceā€ standard of appellate review applies to an evidentiary burden requiring ā€œclear and convincingā€ evidence. If the ā€œsubstantial evidenceā€ standard of review applies it compromises the reviewing courtā€™s ability to correct error, because the distinction between the preponderance of the evidence burden and the clear and convincing evidence burden is lost.  Henceforth, the standard applied on review to the sufficiency of the evidence supporting a finding requiring clear and convincing evidence should be whether the record, viewed as a whole, contains substantial evidence from which a reasonable trier of fact could have made the finding of high probability demanded by the clear and convincing standard of proof.

Forgot Password

Enter the email associated with you account. You will then receive a link in your inbox to reset your password.

Personal Information

Select Section(s)

CLA Membership is $99 and includes one section. Additional sections are $99 each.