California Supreme Court: Clear and Convincing Standard Of Proof Does Not Disappear On Appeal In Conservatorship Case

In Conservatorship of O.B., the California Supreme Court reversed a decision implementing a conservatorship, holding that an “appellate court must account for the clear and convincing evidence standard of proof when addressing a claim that the evidence does not support a finding made under this standard.”

The California probate court appointed T.B. and C.B. as limited co-conservators for O.B., a young woman with autism. T.B. and C.B. are O.B.’s mother and sister. 

The California probate court heard a contested evidentiary hearing in order to determine whether a limited conservatorship should be imposed for O.B. 

“A psychologist and an investigator for the Santa Barbara County Public Guardian’s Office each testified that O.B. was not a proper candidate for a limited conservatorship or that a limited conservatorship was not necessary.”

O.B. challenged the probate court order, arguing that the evidence presented to the probate court was insufficient. Also arguing that the clear and convincing standard of proof applies to the decision to appoint a limited conservator. The Court of Appeal affirmed the decision, finding that the evidence was sufficient.

“First, the California Supreme Court determined that it makes logical sense that when reviewing a finding that demands clear and convincing evidence, an appellate court must determine whether the evidence reasonably could have led to a finding made with the specific degree of confidence required by this standard – not to simply throw the standard out the window.”

The California Supreme Court held that California Conservatorships require the heightened clear and convincing standard of proof because a person’s rights are being removed.

See California Supreme Court: Clear and Convincing Standard Of Proof Does Not Disappear On Appeal In Conservatorship Case, Probate Stars, July 28, 2020.