Conservatorship of H.S. CA3

Opinion

Filed 9/11/26 Conservatorship of H.S. CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 of H.S. C104760 SACRAMENTO COUNTY PUBLIC GUARDIAN, (Super. Ct. No. 11PR00005) Petitioner and Respondent, v. H.S., Objector and Appellant.

In renewing appellant H.S.’s conservatorship, the trial court found appellant’s current placement to be appropriate. Appellant challenges that finding, arguing it is unsupported by substantial evidence. He also contends the court’s hearing on the issue of his placement violated due process. We affirm. BACKGROUND In 2011, the trial court found appellant to be a gravely disabled person and ordered the appointment of a conservator of his person and estate. In 2025, the Sacramento County Public Guardian (the Public Guardian) petitioned to renew the conservatorship. The trial court granted the petition but set a hearing regarding the issue of appellant’s placement.

1 At the hearing, the parties stipulated that Leslie Langley, a nurse practitioner, was an expert in psychiatry. She testified that appellant has schizoaffective disorder and reports hearing voices. Appellant gets agitated when he is around his peers and is not willing to cooperate with his therapist. When asked if she believed appellant was ready “to be discharged from his current placement to a less restrictive placement,” she responded, “No. He’s not … he’s still dealing with his psychotic symptoms, and because yet we have not find any medications that is, you know, helping to manage these symptoms.” Langley explained that the plan was to work on identifying medication adjustments that may alleviate his psychotic symptoms, noting “it takes time to see the results, the benefits of the medication.” Langley said appellant could be ready for discharge at some point in the future with the right combination of medicine because the medication “could have his psychosis more under control … he is now getting too overwhelmed by it, because that’s the issue to it. He gets overwhelmed, and that’s what [sic] he gets agitated because he’s not able to control himself.” When asked whether it was her opinion that appellant is in the least restrictive environment that was necessary for him, Langley responded that appellant was “in the right facility right now, because we [are] providing the care that he needs and also monitoring symptoms.” When asked whether a particular medication had been effective in treating appellant’s symptoms, she answered “[t]he irritability is still … with his peers, it’s still reported by the staff.” Appellant testified that he did not like living at his present facility anymore because he did not get along with his peers. He said he “need[ed] a different environment, surroundings.”

2 The trial court admitted into evidence progress notes from appellant’s current placement.1 One progress note discussed how appellant did not want to “watch tv with the rest of the group due to believing a demon will come out of the tv.” The note stated that this behavior put appellant “at risk of self-isolation due to them not being able to integrate with the rest of the group.” Another note indicated appellant was worried his peers would die because they were eating poison. The note states that this behavior caused appellant “to isolate away from their peers and heightened distress.” The trial court found “based on all the evidence and review of the records, the– unfortunately, [appellant] is still suffering from delusions. One note fairly recently, from last month, along with what was mentioned in argument, includes demons coming out of the television, and that was one of the reasons why he was getting into altercations with his fellow patients. [¶] And the–there seem to be challenging difficulties managing his medication, his antipsychotic medication, and that’s unfortunate because that seems to be prolonging the reason why he needs to be there. [¶] And–but as far as for today’s purposes, without getting too much into the ballpark of the experts, I am finding that the placement is appropriate at God’s Love Outreach Ministries.” Appellant timely appealed. DISCUSSION Appellant argues there is no substantial evidence to support the trial court’s ruling that he was in an appropriate placement. We disagree.

1 These progress notes, admitted as Exhibit No. 1 at the hearing, were returned to the Public Guardian following trial, and thus were not included in the record on appeal transmitted by the trial court. On July 27, 2026, we ordered the Public Guardian to transmit the exhibit to this court and to counsel for appellant, pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 8.224(d). The Public Guardian did so, and county counsel filed a declaration averring that the transmitted exhibit was a true and correct copy of Exhibit No. 1 from appellant’s hearing.

3 Welfare and Institutions Code section 5358, subdivision (c)(1), states that, in deciding the placement for a conservatee, “the court shall determine the least restrictive and most appropriate … placement for the conservatee.” “An appellate court reviews the trial court’s factual findings to determine if there is substantial evidence to support them, and will sustain the trial court’s factual findings if there is substantial evidence to support those findings, even if there exists evidence to the contrary.” (Conservatorship of Amanda B. (2007) 149 Cal.App.4th 342, 347.) “ ‘In making the determination [regarding substantive evidence], we view the entire record in the light most favorable to the trial court’s findings. [Citations.] We must resolve all conflicts in the evidence and draw all reasonable inferences in favor of the findings.’ ” (Id. at pp. 347-348.) Here, substantial evidence supports the trial court’s finding that appellant’s placement at God’s Love Outreach Ministries was appropriate. The expert testified appellant was still experiencing psychotic symptoms; that he was not yet ready to be discharged; and that he was “in the right facility right now” while the facility continued to adjust his medications. Appellant essentially takes issue with the fact that the court “fail[ed] to even mention the peer conflict in its ruling.” But the court was not required to credit appellant’s testimony on this point. Even if the court credited appellant’s testimony, the court could have reasonably inferred that appellant’s agitation with his peers was due to his psychosis, and thus this issue would have existed at any placement. Appellant also fails to establish that his peer conflicts rendered the placement not “appropriate” under the relevant statute. Appellant also contends the trial court deprived him of “a fundamentally fair hearing guaranteed by the Due Process Clause to the 5th and 14th Amendments to the U.S. Constitution.” Other than this conclusory assertion, he provides no explanation for why the hearing was not “fundamentally fair” and no legal argument specific to this point. We thus deem any due process claim distinct from his substantial evidence claim 4 to be forfeited. (People v. Guzman (2019) 8 Cal.5th 673, 683, fn. 7 [appellant forfeited due process claim by failing to “develop the argument”].) DISPOSITION The trial court order placing appellant at God’s Love Outreach Ministries is affirmed.

\s\ KRAUSE, J.

We concur:

\s\ RENNER, Acting P. J.

\s\ FEINBERG, J.