Conservatorship of K.P.
The court held that, although a person's willingness to accept voluntary treatment is a relevant factor in determining grave disability under the Lanterman-Petris-Short Act, it is not a separate statutory element that the state must prove, so a jury may consider that willingness together with the basic-needs test, thereby standardizing jury instructions and limiting the evidentiary burden on petitioners in mental-health conservatorship proceedings.
Date Filed: June 28, 2021
Case Name: Conservatorship of K.P.
Case Number: S258212
Court: California Supreme Court
(‘The Court resolves a split among the Courts of Appeal on whether the Lanterman‑Petris‑Short Act requires a separate proof that a person is “unwilling or unable to voluntarily accept meaningful treatment” in order to find him or her gravely disabled. The Supreme Court holds that willingness to accept treatment is a relevant consideration in the grave‑disability inquiry, but it is not a distinct statutory element that the state must prove; the jury may weigh the evidence on voluntary treatment alongside the basic‑needs test. This decision standardizes jury instructions and limits the evidentiary burden on petitioners, shaping how mental‑health conservatorships are evaluated in California probate practice.’, ‘347a8001’)
This case summary was prepared for educational purposes. For the authoritative version, please refer to the full opinion or the official California Courts website.