Conservatorship of E.L. CA3

── Conservatorship of E.L. CA3 ── Court: California Court of Appeal Date: April 22, 2026 Category: General Filed 4/22/26 Conservatorship of E.L. CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115. IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT (Shasta) Conservatorship of the Person and Estate of E.L. C104027 SHASTA COUNTY PUBLIC GUARDIAN, (Super. Ct. No. 25MH- Plaintiff and Respondent, 0004166) v. E.L., Objector and Respondent. E.L. appeals from an order issued after a bench trial appointing a conservator over her person and estate under the Lanterman-Petris-Short Act (LPS Act). (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 5000 et seq.)1 She contends that the record does not affirmatively demonstrate that she knowingly and intelligently waived her right to a jury trial. We agree and reverse. BACKGROUND E.L. has a lengthy history of mental illness, with multiple involuntary psychiatric holds and frequent nonadherence to treatment, including antipsychotic medication. On April 9, 2025, the Shasta County Public Guardian (Public Guardian) petitioned to be appointed as E.L.’s temporary and permanent conservator under the LPS Act, alleging 1 Undesignated statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code. 1 that E.L. was gravely disabled because of a mental disorder. The Public Guardian was appointed as temporary conservator the next day. On May 6, 2025, the trial court held a hearing on the Public Guardian’s request to be appointed as permanent conservator. The clerk’s minutes of this hearing differ from the reporter’s transcript. The minute order states that the court called the matter at 3:27 p.m., and E.L.’s counsel then informed the court that E.L. wished to contest the petition. The minute order then says: “The Court advises [E.L.] of her right to a Jury Trial. [E.L.] waives her right to Jury Trial and consents to proceed with a Court Trial.” It then states that the court excluded potential witnesses from the courtroom and that E.L. was sworn and examined at 3:29 p.m., two minutes after the proceeding began. The reporter’s transcript contains no discussion of the trial court’s advisement of E.L.’s right to a jury trial or E.L.’s waiver of that right, with the beginning of the proceedings as follows: “BAILIFF: Come to order. Court is now in session. “THE COURT: Okay. [E.L.] “THE CLERK: Yes. “THE COURT: The last one. Did I keep my notes in there. [¶] Usually it takes longer for someone to sit down. So you’re [E.L.]? “[E.L.]: Yes, I am. “THE COURT: Nice to see you. How are you today? “[E.L.]: I’ve had better days. Hopefully [i]t’ll end better. “THE COURT: You’re not feeling so well? “[E.L.]: I’m feeling better than I was. “THE COURT: Okay. You ready to go though? “[E.L.]: I’m ready to go home, yes. “THE COURT: Okay. “[E.L.]: Yes. 2  “THE COURT: You understand what we’re here for? “[E.L.]: Yes, I do. “THE COURT: Okay. And you’re contesting the conservatorship? “[E.L.]: That’s right. “THE COURT: Okay. And both parties are ready for a trial?” Both counsel responded affirmatively, the trial court excluded witnesses from the courtroom, and E.L. was sworn in as the first witness. E.L. was examined regarding her mental health hist