In Conservatorship of K.P., the Supreme Court today holds that conservatorships for those gravely disabled because of mental health disorders can be established without proving that the prospective conservatee is unwilling or unable to accept voluntary treatment.
However, the court’s unanimous opinion by Justice Carol Corrigan says that the lack of voluntary treatment options is relevant to whether a person is gravely disabled, a fact that is a prerequisite to a conservatorship, and one that must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt. The court concludes that “there is a difference between relevant evidence and the elements that must be proven to determine an action.”
K.P. is mostly a statutory construction case. The court interprets the Lanterman-Petris-Short Act that the opinion characterizes as “the carefully calibrated statutory approach through which the Legislature has endeavored to protect both the mentally ill and the public, and to ensure that those in need can receive prompt, appropriate treatment tailored to their individual condition and circumstances.” The opinion also rejects an argument that constitutional due process requires a finding of the lack of voluntary treatment amenability.
The voluntary-treatment issue had divided the Courts of Appeal. The court affirms the Second District, Division Two, and it disapproves a 1981 opinion by that District’s Division Four, a 1984 opinion by the Fourth District, Division Two, and a 1987 opinion by the Fourth District, Division One. Today’s opinion is in agreement with a 1989 decision of the Fourth District, Division Three, and a 2019 decision of the Second District, Division Five, which is a grant-and-hold for K.P. (see here).
