Conservatorship of Michael

Filed 2/16/06 Conservatorship of Michael R. CA5

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS

California Rules of Court, rule 977(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 977(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

THE COURT^*

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Fresno County. Debra Kazanjian, Judge.

Michael J. Kluk, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Petitioner and Appellant.

Dennis Marshall, County Counsel, and W. Richard Bailey, Deputy County Counsel, for Objectors and Respondents.

-ooOoo-

Appellant Michael R. appeals from an order of October 13, 2005 finding that he lacked the capacity to refuse antipsychotic medication and appointing a temporary conservator of his person. (Welf. & Inst. Code, §§ 5352.1, 5332.^[1]) On September 27, 2005, the police had taken him to Community Behavioral Health Center pursuant to section 5150 after he had acted in an agitated, strange and aggressive manner at Blackbeard's amusement park. Michael's treating psychiatrist opined that he suffered from a bipolar disorder and, as a result, was gravely disabled. The psychiatrist had prescribed psychotropic medications to stabilize Michael's behavior but he did not understand or appreciate his need for the medications and refused them. The court found Michael to be gravely disabled and appointed a temporary conservator. It also found he lacked the capacity to refuse antipsychotic medication. This appeal followed.

Michael contends there was insufficient evidence to establish he was gravely disabled and incapable of reasonably refusing psychotropic medications. In addition, he contends the court was without authority to allow the involuntary administration of psychotropic medications to treat aggressive behaviors rather than the behaviors on which the temporary conservatorship was ordered--his inability to feed, clothe and shelter himself.

DISCUSSION

The two orders that Michael challenges on appeal are no longer in effect. On December 8, 2005, the court dismissed the petition for his Lanterman-Petris-Short Act (LPS) conservatorship after his treating psychologist testified that he was no longer gravely disabled.^[2] The dismissal effectively terminated the orders relating to the temporary conservatorship and to forced medication. (§§ 5352.1; 5336 [determination of a person's incapacity to refuse treatment is effective only for the duration of the commitment during which it was made].) Thus, the controversy that is the subject of the appealed orders no longer exists. Any decision of this court regarding the issues raised can have no practical impact nor can we provide the parties effective relief. When no effective relief can be granted, an appeal is moot and will be dismissed. (MHC Operating Limited Partnership v. City of San Jose (2003) 106 Cal.App.4th 204, 214.)

DISPOSITION

The appeal is dismissed.

Publication courtesy of Vista Migration Law Attorney (http://www.mcmillanlaw.us/) And Vista Lawyers Directory

( http://www.fearnotlaw.com/ )

*Before Dibiaso, Acting P.J., Wiseman, J., and Gomes, J.

^[1] Further statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code.

^[2] We grant respondent's request that the court take judicial notice of the trial court order dismissing the LPS conservatorship, a certified copy of which is attached to respondent's brief.