Conservatorship of O.B.

Case Number: S254938

Court: Cal.

Date Filed: 2020-07-27

Case Brief – Conservatorship of O.B.

Court: California Supreme Court
Date: 2025‑09‑05
Case Number: S254938
Disposition: Reversed and remanded; the Court held that appellate review of a finding made under the clear‑and‑convincing‑evidence standard must itself be calibrated to that heightened standard.

Holding

The court held that when a trial‑court finding is required to be supported by clear and convincing evidence, an appellate court reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence must determine whether the record, viewed in the light most favorable to the prevailing party, contains substantial evidence from which a reasonable trier of fact could have found the fact “highly probable” – i.e., the level of certainty demanded by the clear and convincing standard.

Narrative

Lead
In a decision that resolves a long‑standing split among California appellate courts, the Supreme Court clarified that the “clear and convincing” burden of proof does not vanish on appeal. Instead, appellate courts must incorporate that heightened certainty into their substantial‑evidence analysis, a rule that will shape future conservatorship, dependency, and other civil proceedings where important individual rights hang in the balance.

Procedural History
In August 2017, T.B. (the mother of O.B.) and C.B. (her older sister) filed a petition in Santa Barbara County Superior Court seeking appointment as limited coconservators for O.B., an 18‑year‑old woman with autism spectrum disorder who was then residing with her great‑grandmother, L.K. The public defender was appointed for O.B. under Probate Code § 1471. After a contested evidentiary hearing that spanned September 2017 through May 2018, the trial judge appointed the siblings as limited coconservators, citing personal observation of O.B. at the hearings as part of his factual basis.

O.B. appealed, arguing that the probate court had not met the clear and convincing burden required by Probate Code § 1801(e) for the appointment of a limited conservatorship. The Court of Appeal affirmed, relying on a line of precedent that the clear‑and‑convincing standard “disappears” on appellate review and that the ordinary “substantial evidence” test—without regard to the heightened burden—suffices. The Supreme Court granted review to resolve the conflicting authority.

Facts
The hearing featured testimony from the petitioners (T.B. and C.B.), L.K., a cousin, a psychologist (Dr. Kathy Khoie) who opined that O.B. was not a proper candidate for a limited conservatorship, and an investigator from the Santa Barbara County Public Guardian’s Office who also opposed the petition. The trial judge, after observing O.B. at multiple hearings, concluded that a limited conservatorship was “appropriate” and appointed the coconservators without issuing a detailed statement of decision.

Issues

Standard of Review: Does the appellate court’s “substantial evidence” inquiry for sufficiency of the evidence have to be calibrated to the clear‑and‑convincing standard that governed the trial‑court finding?
Application to Conservatorship: Assuming the answer to (1) is affirmative, did the probate court’s record contain sufficient evidence to satisfy the clear‑and‑convincing burden for appointing a limited conservatorship over O.B.?

Holding
The Supreme Court rejected the “disappears” doctrine. It held that appellate review of a finding predicated on clear and convincing evidence must itself ask whether the record contains substantial evidence that would permit a reasonable fact‑finder to reach the same conclusion with the heightened certainty required by that standard. Consequently, the Court of Appeal’s analysis was erroneous, and the case was remanded for a proper review under the clarified standard.

Reasoning

Nature of the Clear‑and‑Convincing Standard
The Court reiterated the doctrinal hierarchy of burdens: preponderance < clear and convincing < beyond a reasonable doubt. Clear and convincing evidence demands that the fact be “highly probable,” a level of certainty that sits between the other two standards. The Court cited In re Angelia P. (28 Cal.3d 908, 919‑920) and Wendland (26 Cal.4th 519, 552) to underscore that the standard is not a mere label but a substantive gauge of evidentiary weight.
Appellate Review Must Reflect the Burden
Drawing an analogy to criminal appeals, the Court pointed to Jackson v. Virginia (443 U.S. 307, 318) and its California progeny People v. Johnson (26 Cal.3d 557, 562) where the appellate court reviews sufficiency of the evidence through the lens of the applicable burden (beyond a reasonable doubt). The same logic, the Court argued, applies to civil matters governed by clear and convincing proof.
Substantial Evidence Re‑Defined
While “substantial evidence” traditionally means evidence of “ponderable legal significance” that is “reasonable, credible, and of solid value,” the Court clarified that the content of that evidence must be sufficient to meet the heightened certainty. Merely finding that the evidence is “credible” is insufficient if it does not rise to the level of “high probability.”
Policy Considerations
The Court emphasized that clear and convincing proof is reserved for determinations involving “particularly important individual interests or rights” (e.g., termination of parental rights, involuntary commitment, conservatorship). Ignoring the heightened standard on appeal would erode the protective purpose of the burden, allowing erroneous deprivations of liberty or autonomy to go unchecked.
Rejection of the “Disappears” Doctrine
The Court dissected the lineage of the “disappears” rule, tracing it to Crail (8 Cal.3d 744, 750) and a passage in the Witkin treatise. While acknowledging that the standard guides the trial court, the Court held that the appellate court must still account for it when assessing whether the trial court’s finding was supported by substantial evidence. The “disappears” language was deemed an over‑broad reading that conflicted with the Court’s own precedent in In re Angelia P., White, and Jackson.
Limits on Appellate Fact‑Finding
The Court stressed that the appellate review remains deferential: the reviewing court views the record in the light most favorable to the prevailing party, accepts the trial judge’s credibility determinations, and does not re‑weigh the evidence. The only difference is that the appellate court must ask whether a reasonable fact‑finder could have found the fact highly probable rather than merely more likely than not.

Conclusion and Remand
The Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeal’s judgment and remanded for a new appellate analysis that applies the clarified substantial‑evidence test. The case now returns to the Second Appellate District, which must determine whether the probate court’s record—testimony from family members, the psychologist, and the public‑guardian investigator—contains enough credible, solid evidence to support a finding that a limited conservatorship for O.B. was “highly probable.”

Referenced Statutes and Doctrines

Probate Code § 1801(e) – Clear and convincing evidence required for appointment of a conservator.
Probate Code § 1471 – Right to appointed counsel in probate proceedings.
Evidence Code § 115 – Definition of “burden of proof” and the three recognized standards.
Civil Code § 3294(a) – Standard for punitive damages (clear and convincing).
Welfare & Institutions Code § 366.21(g)(1)(C)(ii) – Application of clear and convincing proof in dependency proceedings.

Major Cases Cited

In re Angelia P. (28 Cal.3d 908, 919‑924) – Clear and convincing standard in parental‑rights terminations.
Wendland (26 Cal.4th 519, 552‑553) – Review of clear‑and‑convincing findings.
White (9 Cal.5th 455, 465‑466) – Clear and convincing proof in bail determinations.
Jackson v. Virginia (443 U.S. 307, 318) – Federal standard for sufficiency of evidence under “beyond a reasonable doubt.”
People v. Johnson (26 Cal.3d 557, 562‑577) – Adoption of the Jackson standard in California criminal appeals.
Crail (8 Cal.3d 744, 750) – Statement that the clear‑and‑convincing standard is for trial‑court guidance.
T.J. (21 Cal.App.5th 1229‑1240) – Recent appellate discussion of the “disappears” doctrine.
In re Marriage of Murray (101 Cal.App.4th 581, 604) – Earlier appellate view that the standard does not affect review.
Sheehan v. Sullivan (126 Cal 189, 193‑194) – Historical acknowledgment that appellate courts must consider the standard when reviewing sufficiency.
People v. Veamatahau (9 Cal.5th 16, 35‑36) – Modern articulation of deference in criminal sufficiency review.

Implications
The Court’s pronouncement aligns California’s civil appellate practice with the well‑established criminal‑law approach, ensuring that the heightened protection afforded by the clear‑and‑convincing burden is not diluted on appeal. Practitioners will now need to structure evidentiary records in conservatorship, dependency, and similar proceedings with an eye toward demonstrating high probability, not merely “more likely than not.” The decision also signals that the “disappears” language in older opinions will no longer serve as a shield for appellate courts to ignore the substantive weight of the burden, thereby tightening the evidentiary gate for future limited‑conservatorship appointments.