Conservatorship of Maharaj M.

Filed 8/15/06 Conservatorship of Maharaj M. 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.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 Kern County. Gary T. Friedman, Judge.

Paul Bernstein, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Objector and Appellant.

B. C. Barmann, Sr., County Counsel, and Susan M. Gill, Deputy County Counsel, for Petitioner and Respondent.

-ooOoo-

Appellant Maharaj M. appeals from the order of the trial court reappointing the Kern County Conservator as conservator of his person and estate under the Lanterman-Petris-Short Act (LPS Act). (Welf. & Inst. Code,^[1] § 5000 et seq.) The order was made after a jury trial on the issue of whether appellant suffers from a grave disability as a result of a mental illness. Appellant contends there is no substantial evidence to support the finding of grave disability. Appellant also contends the trial court failed to properly instruct the jury that it must find a danger of violent behavior due to a serious difficulty controlling behavior pursuant to In re Howard N. (2005) 35 Cal.4th 117 (Howard N.). We reject both contentions and affirm the trial court's order.

FACTUAL HISTORY

Psychologist Akira Suzuki, Ph.D. testified he was a licensed psychologist for 16 years. Dr. Suzuki had been evaluating people for the previous six years to determine if they were gravely disabled and evaluated appellant on October 20, 2005. Dr. Suzuki did not treat appellant but evaluated him to determine his condition. Dr. Suzuki reviewed appellant's records and met with him personally. Dr. Suzuki explained that appellant suffers from schizophrenia, paranoid type which he generally explained as a thought disorder.

Appellant believes he has billions of dollars and that he communicates with aliens from an advanced civilization in outer space. Appellant also believes he communicates with Presidents Bush and Clinton through telepathy. Appellant sees himself as an important international businessman and wants a body guard for protection. Because of his importance, appellant believes there are people who seek to harm him. In fact, appellant receives public assistance for his basic needs.

Dr. Suzuki described these thoughts as grandiose delusions. Appellant thinks his mental illness is caused by witchcraft or the malice of his family. Though appellant takes medications to control his delusions, he continues to suffer from them. Appellant describes himself as being psychic rather than psychotic.

Appellant's schizophrenia interferes with his rational thinking to the extent that he cannot make a plan to provide for food, clothing, and shelter. Because he believes he's a billionaire, appellant cannot find a place to live which is within his financial means. Appellant lived for a time in an apartment provided for by his family. Appellant inaccurately thought he paid for the apartment.

Dr. Suzuki explained that only a small percentage of people with schizophrenia are gravely disabled enough to require a conservator. Dr. Suzuki has evaluated conservatees and in about 20 percent of the cases, he has found they were no longer gravely disabled when they are able to provide for food, clothing, and shelter or have the capacity to seek assistance obtaining these things from a third party.

When Dr. Suzuki asked appellant how he would provide for his own shelter, appellant replied that he had an apartment in Delano. Dr. Suzuki interpreted this statement as meaning that appellant once lived in Delano not as an indication that he knew where to rent an apartment. Appellant indicated he was in an agricultural business with his brother. Appellant's brother told Dr. Suzuki this was not so.

When Dr. Suzuki asked appellant how he would provide for his own food, appellant told him he had his own transportation and a license to drive an 18-wheeler truck. Because appellant had been precluded from having a basic driver's license in the past, Dr. Suzuki did not check with the Department of Motor Vehicles to determine if appellant's assertion was true.

Dr. Suzuki believed appellant would pose a danger to himself or others if he did drive a vehicle because of his delusions and because of the effects of the medications he was taking. Appellant would be a danger to himself or to others if he possessed firearms. Appellant is not competent to enter into a contract in excess of $15.

Dr. Suzuki does not believe appellant is capable of giving informed consent concerning his own medical treatment. About 90 percent of the time appellant takes his medication, but 10 percent of the time he refuses to take it because he does not believe he has a mental illness. When this happens, appellant is given injections of his medication.^[2] Dr. Suzuki stated that appellant is gravely disabled and needs care in a locked facility.

Dr. Suzuki acknowledged that appellant was oriented as to time, place, and person. Appellant was aware of current events. He knew who the governor and president were, showing he has a good short term memory. Someone oriented to space and time and who is aware of current events can still be delusional. When it came to performing basic hygiene, for instance, appellant had to often be prompted to take a shower, eat, and take his medication.

Appellant's case manager from the Kern County Mental Health Department, Alice Harel, testified that she is in contact with appellant at least twice a month. Appellant is housed at a highly structured mental health recovery center which tries to teach patients how to take care of themselves. The facility teaches independent living skills such as how to rent an apartment. Appellant told Harel he is not mentally ill.

Harel has been working with appellant to transition him into a lower level of care in a facility that is not locked. She thinks he could be managed in a highly structured board-and-care facility. Appellant still needs to be in an environment which is very supervised and structured. When Harel drove appellant by a board-and-care facility, appellant told her he feared for his safety there even though it looked nice. Appellant told Harel he would rather stay in the locked facility until he can return to his family.

Appellant tells Harel he is very afraid for his safety. He believes he has many businesses from the automobile industry to agriculture. Appellant believes he is very wealthy and that his family wants to take his money. Appellant is afraid of his family and believes they want to harm him. Harel has talked to members of appellant's family, who are involved in agriculture. Harel has confirmed, however, that appellant is not part of that business. Harel has not found any assets appellant can call his own other than Social Security payments.

Although Harel's goal is to move appellant into a lower level of care, he is resistant. Because of appellant's delusions, he would not be safe in a lower level of care. Harel explained that, at this time, appellant is not able to provide for his food, clothing, or shelter without the assistance of a conservator.

Appellant testified he has lived in the United States since 1966. He has traveled back and forth between here and India. Appellant attended U.C. Davis but did not obtain a degree because he did not have enough money to stay in school.

Appellant stated that when he lived in Delano, he was able to make his own meals and pay his rent. Appellant said he was in partnership with his family and has equity and assets he owns jointly with them. Appellant explained his family is involved in agriculture and owns thousands of acres and has up to 200,000 acres in production. His family also has other businesses including Goodyear Tire, Food 4 Less stores, and Embassy Hotels. According to appellant, his family owns 25 different large sized businesses.

Appellant no longer wants to stay in the locked facility and does not want to live in a board-and-care home. When asked how much money appellant would have to allocate for his rent, he explained that he has Social Security. Appellant thinks he â€