Conservatorship of Maria B.

Bad Law
160 Cal. Rptr. 3d 269·218 Cal. App. 4th 514
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaJuly 31, 2013G047889California7,408 words

Opinion

Opinion

Aronson, J.

As appellant Maria B.’s mother and limited conservator, Denise B. petitioned the trial court for an order authorizing her to consent to a hysterectomy and oophorectomy on Maria’s behalf. Maria is a developmentally disabled adult who suffers from numerous health problems, including an abnormally long and heavy menses and debilitating migraine headaches that usually coincide with the onset of her menses. After numerous other treatments for Maria’s severe menstrual bleeding and migraines failed, her doctors recommended a hysterectomy and oophorectomy to treat Maria’s condition.

The trial court found Probate Code section 2357 and its provisions regulating court-ordered medical treatment governed Denise’s petition, rather than Probate Code section 1950 et seq. and its provisions regulating sterilization of developmentally disabled adults. As explained below, we agree section 2357 governs because the objective of the proposed surgery is to treat Maria’s medical conditions, not to prevent her from bearing children. Although the proposed surgery would result in Maria’s sterilization, that is the incidental effect of the medically necessary treatment.

In deciding the merits of…

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.