Conservatorship of O.B. - Case Brief

7 Mins read

Conservatorship of O.B.

Case Number: B290805A

Court: Cal. Ct. App.

Date Filed: 2020-12-02

Case Brief – Conservatorship of O.B.

Court: COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Date: 2025-09-04
Case Number: B290805
Disposition: The order establishing a limited conservatorship of appellant’s person and appointing respondents as conservators is affirmed. The parties shall bear their own costs on appeal.

Holding

The court held that, after applying the California Supreme Court’s clarified standard of review for clear‑and‑convincing findings, the trial court’s evidence was sufficient to support a finding that O.B. lacks the capacity to manage certain personal needs, thereby justifying the limited conservatorship of her person.

Narrative

A limited conservatorship for a young adult with autism survives appellate scrutiny. The Second Appellate District affirmed a Santa Barbara probate court’s decision to appoint O.B.’s mother and sister as limited conservators of her person, rejecting the appellant’s claim that the court exceeded its jurisdiction by altering her special‑education plan and that the evidentiary record was insufficient under the clear‑and‑convincing standard.

Procedural Odyssey

The matter began with a verified petition filed in August 2017 by O.B.’s mother (T.B.) and sister (C.B.) seeking limited conservatorship of O.B.’s person. The petition alleged that, despite an “average” intellectual level, O.B. could not reliably provide for her health, nutrition, clothing, or shelter. A contested evidentiary hearing was held in the Santa Barbara Superior Court (Super. Ct. No. 17PR00325). The trial court entered an order appointing the petitioners as limited conservators and granting them authority to make decisions concerning O.B.’s education under Probate Code § 2351.5(b)(7). O.B., represented by a guardian ad litem, appealed the order.

The appeal was remanded from the California Supreme Court’s 2020 decision in Conservatorship of O.B., 9 Cal.5th 989, which clarified the appellate standard for clear‑and‑convincing findings. The Court of Appeal was instructed to “reevaluate the sufficiency of the evidence in light of [the Supreme Court’s] clarification” (pp. 995, 1012). On remand, the appellate panel applied the clarified standard and concluded that the record contained substantial evidence supporting the trial court’s findings.

Factual Canvas

O.B. is a young adult diagnosed with autism spectrum disorder (ASD). At the time of the petition she was 18, living with her great‑grandmother (L.K.) in Lompoc, and repeating her senior year at Cabrillo High School. The petitioners presented a mixture of testimonial and documentary evidence:

  • Mother’s testimony – Described daily caregiving responsibilities, including medication administration, clothing selection, personal hygiene, and decision‑making assistance. She recounted O.B.’s frequent “behavioral outbursts,” susceptibility to “run off” or “sign documents without understanding,” and a pattern of over 300 unexcused absences and multiple suspensions at Cabrillo High.

  • Expert testimony – Dr. Kathy Khoie, a psychologist, opined that O.B. possessed “average” intelligence and “high‑average” non‑verbal functioning, concluding that she could live independently with support. Dr. Christopher Donati, a probate investigator, testified that the regional‑center report (prepared by Dr. David Jacobs, Ph.D.) recommended limited conservatorship for habilitation, medical, and educational decisions, and that a separate medical declaration (Dr. Cindy Blifeld) asserted a lack of capacity.

  • Great‑grandmother’s observation – L.K. testified that O.B. was “a nervous wreck” since the proceedings began and could manage daily tasks “as much as any teenager can,” but expressed fear of moving to her mother’s home.

  • Petitioners’ own statements – Emphasized O.B.’s inability to consistently manage routine self‑care, susceptibility to exploitation, and the need for structured support.

The trial court also considered its own observations of O.B. over a ten‑month period, noting that she participated in hearings and exhibited the functional deficits described.

Core Issues

  1. Jurisdiction over educational decisions – O.B. argued that the probate court’s grant of authority to the conservators to “make decisions concerning the education of the limited conservatee” violated federal and state special‑education statutes, effectively modifying her Individualized Education Program (IEP).

  2. Sufficiency of evidence under the clear‑and‑convincing standard – O.B. contended that the record did not meet the heightened burden required for limited‑conservatorship findings, pointing to expert opinions that opposed conservatorship.

Court’s Reasoning

Educational authority is within probate jurisdiction. The appellate court held that § 2351.5(b)(7) expressly permits a probate court, in appointing a limited conservator, to grant that conservator the power to make educational decisions. The court emphasized that it did not “modify” O.B.’s IEP; it merely authorized the conservators to act on her behalf if necessary. No statutory prohibition was identified, and the court rejected the argument that the probate court’s involvement preempted the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) or California’s Education Code.

Clear‑and‑convincing proof satisfied by substantial evidence. Guided by Conservatorship of O.B., 9 Cal.5th 989, at pp. 1011‑1012, the panel applied the “substantial evidence” test: whether a reasonable fact‑finder could conclude it was “highly probable” that the fact was true. Mother’s extensive, contemporaneous testimony—corroborated by Dr. Blifeld’s medical declaration and Dr. Jacobs’s regional‑center report—provided the requisite foundation. The court noted that a single witness may suffice (Conservatorship of B.C., 6 Cal.App.5th 1028, 1034) and that conflicting expert opinions do not defeat a finding when the overall record supports the conclusion (Conservatorship of Amanda B., 149 Cal.App.4th 342, 347).

Trial court’s observations count as evidence. Citing People v. Rodas, 6 Cal.5th 219 (2018) and People v. Fairbank, 16 Cal.4th 1223 (1997), the appellate panel affirmed that a trial judge’s personal observations, when made during a contested hearing, are admissible as part of the substantial evidence inquiry. The judge’s ten‑month exposure to O.B. reinforced the factual findings rather than prejudicing them.

Less‑restrictive alternatives were considered. The court rejected the claim that the trial court failed to identify the “least restrictive alternative” required by Probate Code § 1800.3(b). While the statute does not demand a detailed on‑record analysis, the appellate panel found no indication that the trial court ignored such alternatives; the presumption of regularity applies (Landry v. Berryessa Union School Dist., 39 Cal.App.4th 691, 698‑699).

No pre‑judgment. The trial court’s pre‑trial warning that the mother had presented a “prima facie” case for conservatorship was deemed a procedural courtesy, not evidence of bias. The court emphasized that the judge retained discretion to decide after hearing all evidence, consistent with Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co., 25 Cal.4th 826 (2001).

Impact and Unresolved Questions

The decision reinforces the deference appellate courts must afford probate judges when reviewing clear‑and‑convincing findings in limited‑conservatorship cases, especially where the record includes extensive caregiver testimony and regional‑center evaluations. It also clarifies that granting conservators authority over educational decisions does not, per se, contravene IDEA or state education statutes, provided the court does not directly alter an IEP.

Nevertheless, the opinion leaves open the precise boundary between probate‑court‑authorized educational decision‑making and the statutory autonomy of school districts under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. Future disputes may arise when a conservator’s actions directly conflict with an existing IEP, prompting courts to balance the conservator’s fiduciary duties against federal special‑education protections.

Referenced Statutes and Doctrines

  • Probate Code §§ 1046, 1022 – Evidentiary requirements in contested proceedings.
  • Probate Code § 1801(d), (e) – Definition and burden of proof for limited conservatorship of the person (clear and convincing).
  • Probate Code § 1828.5(c) – Standard for appointing a limited conservator based on lack of capacity.
  • Probate Code § 2351.5(b)(7) – Authority to grant conservators power over education.
  • Probate Code § 1800.3(b) – Requirement to consider less restrictive alternatives.
  • IDEA and California Education Code – Underlying statutes implicated by the jurisdictional argument.

Key Cases Cited

  • Conservatorship of O.B., 9 Cal.5th 989 (2020) – Clarification of appellate review of clear‑and‑convincing findings.
  • Conservatorship of B.C., 6 Cal.App.5th 1028 (2016) – Single‑witness sufficiency.
  • Conservatorship of Amanda B., 149 Cal.App.4th 342 (2007) – Deference to trial findings when substantial evidence exists.
  • People v. Rodas, 6 Cal.5th 219 (2018) – Trial court observations as evidence.
  • People v. Fairbank, 16 Cal.4th 1223 (1997) – Substantial evidence doctrine.
  • Dietz v. Meisenheimer & Herron, 177 Cal.App.4th 771 (2009) – Presumption of correctness of lower court judgments.
  • Landry v. Berryessa Union School Dist., 39 Cal.App.4th 691 (1995) – Presumption of regularity.
  • Wilson v. Sunshine Meat & Liquor Co., 34 Cal.3d 554 (1983) – Regularity presumption in procedural context.
  • Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co., 25 Cal.4th 826 (2001) – Prima facie showing and burden of proof.