Conservatorship of G.B. CA2/6

DISCUSSION

Appellant contends reversal is necessary because the trial court failed to properly advise him of his jury trial right and to obtain a personal waiver of that right. We conclude the court obtained an adequate waiver. The court did err in failing to advise appellant of his jury trial right under Probate Code section 1828. However, the error was harmless. Initially, the Public Guardian asserts appellant “has forfeited the issues brought before this Court.” To the extent such forfeiture occurred here, “because the forfeiture doctrine is not absolute [citation], and there appear to be no disputed facts at issue, we choose to exercise our discretion to address the merits of the claim . . . .” (K.R. v. Superior Court (2022) 80 Cal.App.5th 133, 142.) In Heather W., a panel of this court held that “[i]n conservatorship proceedings pursuant to the LPS Act, the trial court must obtain a personal waiver of a jury trial from the conservatee . . . .” (Heather W., supra, 245 Cal.App.4th at p. 381; but see Conservatorship of C.O. (2021) 71 Cal.App.5th 894, 912, 915; K.R. v. Superior Court, supra, 80 Cal.App.5th at p. 143

3 [noting disagreement among courts as to whether personal,…