Conservatorship of A.E. - Case Brief

Conservatorship of A.E. - Case Brief

Conservatorship of A.E.

Case Number: B297092

Court: Cal. Ct. App.

Date Filed: 2020-02-18

Case Brief – Conservatorship of A.E.

Court: COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Date: 2025-09-04
Case Number: B297092
Disposition: The trial court’s order denying the petition for conservatorship and appointing the Ventura County Public Guardian as permanent limited conservator of the person is reversed; the case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with Probate Code § 1825, and costs are awarded to the appellant.

Holding

The court held that the trial court erred by failing to satisfy the statutory requirements of Probate Code § 1825 for producing the proposed conservatee at the hearing, and therefore could not lawfully deny the petition or appoint the public guardian without first ensuring the conservatee’s attendance or a valid statutory exemption.

Narrative

A mother’s bid to protect her autistic daughter underscores a pivotal due‑process question in California conservatorship law. In Conservatorship of A.E., the Court of Appeal reversed a Ventura County Superior Court order that denied Kristine A.’s petition to serve as limited conservator of her 26‑year‑old daughter, A.E., and that appointed the Ventura County Public Guardian as permanent limited conservator. The appellate decision pivots on the trial court’s failure to comply with Probate Code § 1825, which mandates the production of the proposed conservatee at the hearing unless narrowly defined exceptions are met.

Procedural backdrop

On September 25, 2018, Kristine A. filed a petition seeking limited conservatorship of the person of her adult daughter, A.E., who suffers from Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD) and a history of psychiatric holds under Welfare & Institutions Code § 5150. A.E.’s painful dental abscess could not be treated without a court order because she was a Tri‑Counties Regional Center client, and a physician assistant’s declaration asserted that A.E. lacked capacity to consent to medical care.

The trial court appointed a public defender to represent A.E. under Probate Code § 1471(c) and, after a court‑investigator report indicating an inability to communicate with A.E., denied the temporary conservatorship request. The court then appointed the Ventura County Public Guardian as a temporary, later made permanent, limited conservator of A.E.’s person, despite the absence of any sworn testimony from A.E. or evidence that she consented to the appointment.

Core issue

The appellate panel focused on whether the trial court satisfied § 1825(a)–(c), which requires that a proposed conservatee be “produced” at the hearing unless: (1) the conservatee is out of state; (2) the conservatee is medically unable to attend; or (3) the conservatee expressly communicates unwillingness to attend, does not contest the petition, and does not object to the proposed conservator. Even where emotional or psychological instability is alleged, § 1825(c) permits excusing attendance only if the absence would cause “serious and immediate physiological damage.”

The record showed no affidavit or medical certificate establishing medical inability, nor any declaration that A.E. expressly waived her right to be present. The trial court’s reliance on the investigator’s summary of A.E.’s “mental and emotional condition” failed to meet the statutory “express communication” requirement. Moreover, the court did not consider whether attendance would indeed cause serious physiological harm—a threshold that the record did not satisfy.

Reasoning

Citing Conservatorship of John L. (48 Cal.4th 131, 146 (2010)), the appellate court reiterated that § 1825 functions as a “light switch” for the courtroom; until the production requirement is satisfied, the court cannot properly evaluate the merits of a conservatorship petition. The court emphasized that an adult proposed conservatee is presumed competent and retains all civil rights under Probate Code § 810(a) and the broader statutory purpose of conservatorships—protecting rights while preserving independence (Probate Code §§ 1800, 1801). The appellate panel rejected the respondent’s argument that a parent could waive the conservatee’s § 1825 rights, finding no statutory or case authority supporting such a waiver.

Because the trial court proceeded without A.E.’s attendance or a valid exemption, its denial of the petition and appointment of the public guardian were procedurally defective. The appellate court therefore reversed the judgment, remanded for a hearing that complies with § 1825, and awarded costs to the appellant.

Significance and unresolved questions

The decision reinforces the procedural safeguards that protect adults with developmental disabilities, even when they exhibit severe behavioral challenges. Practitioners must now ensure that, before a conservatorship can be granted, the proposed conservatee is either present, medically excused by a licensed practitioner, or has unequivocally communicated a willingness to forgo attendance. The ruling also signals that a parent’s longstanding caregiving relationship does not substitute for statutory compliance.

Unresolved issues remain, however. The appellate court declined to address the substantive merits of the petition—whether Kristine A. is the most suitable limited conservator—or the alleged violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act (42 U.S.C. § 12101 et seq.). Future litigation may explore whether the ADA imposes additional procedural duties on probate courts when dealing with “special‑needs” adults. Additionally, the standard for “serious and immediate physiological damage” in the context of autism‑related anxiety has yet to be fully defined, leaving lower courts to grapple with evidentiary thresholds in similar cases.

Overall, Conservatorship of A.E. serves as a cautionary precedent: procedural fidelity to § 1825 is non‑negotiable, and any deviation risks reversal, even when the underlying intent is to secure urgent medical care for a vulnerable adult.

Referenced Statutes and Doctrines

  • Probate Code §§ 1825(a)–(c) – Production and attendance requirements for proposed conservatees.
  • Probate Code §§ 1827 – Application of civil trial procedures to conservatorship hearings.
  • Probate Code §§ 1800, 1801 – Legislative purpose of conservatorships and standards for limited conservatorship.
  • Probate Code § 810(a) – Presumption of competence and retention of civil rights.
  • Probate Code § 1471(c) – Appointment of counsel for the proposed conservatee.
  • Welfare & Institutions Code § 5150 – Involuntary psychiatric holds.
  • Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. § 12101 et seq. – Federal disability rights framework.

Key Cases

  • Conservatorship of John L., 48 Cal.4th 131 (2010) – Interpretation of § 1825 production requirements.
  • Conservatorship of A.E. (this case) – Application of § 1825 to an adult with autism.

Last updated September 05, 2025.