Conservatorship of Margaret L.

[EDITORS' NOTE: THIS PAGE CONTAINS HEADNOTES. HEADNOTES ARE NOT AN OFFICIAL PRODUCT OF THE COURT, THEREFORE THEY ARE NOT DISPLAYED.] *Page 677 When appointed counsel in a conservatorship appeal fails to discover an arguable issue, must the Court of Appeal independently review the record upon a request per People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 ? 1 Yes . I A unanimous jury found Margaret L. gravely disabled, and the court extended her existing conservatorship. 2 We appointed an attorney to represent her on appeal, but counsel requested our independent Wende review after failing to identify an arguable appellate issue. The evidence at trial came from forensic psychologist Stephen Wells and Margaret L. testifying on her own behalf in opposition to the continuation of her conservatorship. Wells, who has been Orange County's Chief of Mental *Page 678 Health Consultation for 19 years, personally examined Margaret L. on five occasions, beginning in 1993, but primarily in 1996 when her current conservatorship commenced. He also saw her about a week before trial at Beverly Manor, a locked-down, long-term psychiatric rehabilitation facility. In addition, he reviewed her extensive medical…

I concur in the lead opinion in all respects. I write separately, however, to clarify the distinction between this case and In re Andrew B . (1995) 40 Cal.App.4th 825 . Andrew B . held Wende review applied to the termination of parental rights in juvenile dependency cases, a conclusion with which I dissented and which the Supreme Court has rejected. ( In re Sade C . (1996) 13 Cal.4th 952 .) As I explained, juvenile dependency cases are fundamentally different from criminal proceedings and do not need Wende review to safeguard a parent's rights. "[T]he juvenile dependency system is itself a process which affects an ongoing outcome. . . . At virtually every point in the process, the law requires the child to be returned to his or her parents unless certain findings are made. [¶] California's juvenile dependency statutes constitute a remarkable system of checks and balances, facilitated by the availability of counsel for indigent parents. The potential for a miscarriage of justice that will escape the notice of any minimally attentive appointed appellate counsel is so low as to be practically nil." ( In re Andrew B ., supra , 40 Cal.App.4th at pp. 864-865 , dis.opn. of Sills, J.) In…

I concur in the decision to affirm the trial court's judgment in this case. However, I respectfully dissent from the majority's conclusion an appellate court must conduct an independent review of the record in an appeal from a conservatorship proceeding under the Lanterman-Petris-Short Act (Welf. Inst. Code, § 5000 et seq.; all further statutory references are to the Welfare and Institutions Code) if appointed counsel files a brief failing to raise any issues. Under Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 [ 87 S.Ct. 1396 ] and People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 , where an attorney appointed to represent an indigent *Page 684 defendant on appeal in a criminal case submits a brief summarizing the case's trial proceedings and facts and, although possibly referring to matters in the record which might arguably support the appeal, does not raise any specific issues, the appellate court must independently review the proceedings to determine whether it presents any arguable issues. ( Anders v. California, supra, 386 U.S. at p. 744 ; People v. Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d at pp. 440 , 442 .) Conservatorship of Besoyan (1986) 181 Cal.App.3d 34 held independent review by the appellate court…

Cheryl A. Geyerman, San Diego, and Peggy A. O'Neill, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Objector and Appellant.

Laurence M. Watson, County Counsel, Robert G. Overby and Laurie A. Shade, Deputy County Counsel, for Petitioner and Respondent.

CROSBY, J.

When appointed counsel in a conservatorship appeal fails to discover an arguable issue, must the Court of Appeal independently review the record upon a request per People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 , 158 Cal.Rptr. 839 , 600 P.2d 1071 ? [1] Yes.

A unanimous jury found Margaret L. gravely disabled, and the court extended her existing conservatorship. [2] We appointed an attorney to represent her on appeal, but counsel requested our independent Wende review after failing to identify an arguable appellate issue.

The evidence at trial came from forensic psychologist Stephen Wells and Margaret L. testifying on her own behalf in opposition to the continuation of her conservatorship. Wells, who has been Orange County's Chief of Mental Health Consultation for 19 years, personally examined Margaret L. on five occasions, beginning in 1993, but primarily in 1996 when her current conservatorship commenced. He also saw her about…