Enmark

Enmark v. KC Community Care

Good Law
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaSeptember 25, 2024B333022California4,022 words

Opinion

Opinion

BACKGROUND

I. Facts

A. LPS Conservatorship

In 2018, the superior court found Lisa was “gravely disabled” and “lack[ed] capacity to consent to psychotic medication.” Scott was appointed as the LPS conservator of Lisa’s person. The appointment was to expire in one year.

1 Because Lisa and Scott have the same surname, we refer to them individually by their first name. For clarity and consistency, we also use the first name of Lisa’s mother, Marilyn Warhol.

2 The LPS conservatorship order empowered Scott to place Lisa in “the least restrictive setting” for her “care and needs,” including a medical or psychiatric nursing facility; to require Lisa to “have treatment related specifically to remedying or preventing the recurrence of” her “being gravely disabled”; and to require Lisa “to accept psychotropic medications.” The order also imposed “disabilities” on Lisa. She was prohibited from possessing a driver’s license and a firearm or other deadly weapon, refusing or consenting to treatment for her mental health disorders and other medical conditions, and “enter[ing] into any contract in which the consideration for performance is money or property.” B. Arbitration…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.