Conservatorship of S.A. v. Public Guardian etc. CA2/6

DISCUSSION

Appellant’s supplemental brief mentions an assault she claims she committed three or four years ago and complains that Dr. Drago and the Public Guardian improperly “locked [her] in a more [r]estricted [p]lacement.” The record reflects, however, that the trial court ordered that she be “place[d] in a locked facility going forward.” When appellant asked “[w]hy,” the court responded: “I’m going to encourage you to comply with your

3 treatment regime and your treatment providers and we will hope that things will go better for you this year.” Substantial evidence supports the trial court’s decision. Appellant testified that she does not believe she has a mental illness or a need for medication. Her own testimony supports Dr. Drago’s opinion that she would not remain stable in a less structured setting. Dr. Drago described what occurs when appellant is not medicated and noted that appellant’s safety, and the safety of those around her, would be comprised if she were on her own.

DISPOSITION

The order continuing appellant’s conservatorship and reappointing the Public Guardian as conservator is affirmed.

PERREN, J.*

We concur:

GILBERT, P.J.

YEGAN,…