BACKGROUND

On April 26, 2018, the trial court ordered a one-year conservatorship for O.R. under the Lanterman-Petris-Short Act (LPS Act) (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 5000 et seq.). The trial court subsequently extended the conservatorship a number of times. On April 28, 2022, the Yolo County Public Guardian (Public Guardian) sought another renewal of O.R.’s conservatorship, along with a temporary extension pending trial. At trial, the Public Guardian called Dr. Alison Steffensen, who testified as an expert. O.R. refused to speak with Dr. Steffensen, but the doctor reviewed records from North Valley Behavioral Health, Yolo County Health and Human Services (HHSA), the Public Guardian, Canyon Manor (a previous placement), and Crestwood (O.R.’s placement at the time). Dr. Steffensen also interviewed O.R.’s psychiatrist, a nurse practitioner at Crestwood, and an HHSA clinician about O.R.’s diagnosis, behavior, and history. Dr. Steffensen opined that O.R. was experiencing “schizoaffective disorder and amphetamine use disorder.” In the prior quarter, O.R. had experienced hallucinations. Although she had been maintained in a locked facility, she left her placement without authorization more than once. After one incident, O.R. complained she was pregnant with a robot and that people were trying to kill her. O.R. has used methamphetamine after leaving her placement and the drug increases her delusions. Dr. Steffensen said O.R. is unable to care for herself and has poor insight into her mental illness. According to Dr. Steffensen, O.R. should be maintained in a locked facility to keep her safe. O.R. admitted she has a substance abuse problem but testified she can care for herself and she would continue taking her prescribed medication. She said staff at her previous placement drugged her with elephant darts. The trial court renewed the conservatorship.

2

DISCUSSION

In Ben C., the California Supreme Court concluded that the procedures referenced in People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 and Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 are not required in the appeal of a conservatorship under the LPS Act. (Ben C., supra, 40 Cal.4th at pp. 536-537.) Here we decline to review the record for error.

DISPOSITION

The appeal is dismissed.

/S/ MAURO, Acting P. J.

We concur:

/S/

KRAUSE, J.

/S/

EARL, J.

3