The most recent opinions published by the Court of Appeal (here and here) are both conservatorship cases. Both under the Lanterman-Petris-Short Act (LPS). Which means they involve individuals with serious problems (and, as a result, serious constraints).
In the first case, M.M. had a history of "schizophrenia and psychotic
disorders, was unwilling to accept voluntary treatment, and [was] unable and unwilling
to provide for his personal needs for food, clothing, and shelter." He also had serious medical issues, and was admitted when he passed out on a bus. His testimony at his hearing was often "rambling and
nonsensical," and the jury found him gravely disabled.
In the second case, D.C. had also been diagnosed with schizophrenia, and was placed on a 5150 hold "after she threatened to hit her mother and 'burn the
house down with [her mother] in it.'" When the responding officers when to her home, furniture was strewn all round the place, and there were holes in the walls. Her thoughts were tangential and disorganized, and she was so agitated that she had to be sedated. She also tested positive for amphetamines (which I'm sure didn't help). And she had an incredibly serious lice problem. (Yuk.)
To give a sense of D.C.'s thinking, at trial, when she was asked whether or not she agreed with her diagnosis of schizophrenia, she testified: "I think I know what they’re talking
about, but it’s—well, I thought it was like when you don’t
understand you yell, and because I used to see them throughout my
window, the guys that would come through the burger stand, and I
would shut my window and be yelling, and my mom said maybe you
are schizophrenic or something. . . . I says no.” Uh, yeah. I'm not surprised the jury found her gravely disabled as well.
The depressing thing about these cases is that you wonder whether the people at issue are ever going to get better. Or whether, instead, they'll be institutionalized forever. Or, alternately, caught in a vicious and never-ending cycle of being treated, released, going off their meds, being readmitted, retreated, rereleased, readmitted, etc. until they ultimately die. None of which sounds good.
And how not fun would be it to be a juror in one of these proceedings? You sit there listening to the horror that is someone else's life and then decide to institutionalize them even though they haven't done anything wrong to anyone -- basically because there's no good alternative. I'd much, much rather be a juror in a civil or criminal case. Ditto for being a judge in those proceedings, I suspect.
Of course you want to maximize someone's liberty if you can. But these cases seem almost invariably depressing. With, again, not much of an alternative.
So that's how this afternoon has gone so far in the Court of Appeal.
