Reported / Citable
Background
B.K. has schizophrenia and has been under an LPS Act conservatorship since September 2019. Her aunt, M.G., became her conservator in 2023. The conservatorship terminates automatically each year unless renewed under Welfare and Institutions Code section 5350. Each year, the conservatee has the right to demand a court trial or a jury trial on whether she remains ‘gravely disabled.’
At a September 2024 termination hearing, B.K. demanded a jury trial. The trial court continued the matter so B.K. could consult with her counsel. At a January 2025 hearing, B.K.’s counsel reported that, after consultation, B.K. had chosen to have a court trial instead. B.K. confirmed that choice on the record. The court conducted a court trial, found her still gravely disabled, and renewed the conservatorship for one year.
B.K. appealed, arguing the trial court did not adequately advise her of her jury-trial rights or ensure her waiver was knowing and intelligent.
The Court’s Holding
The Court of Appeal affirmed. The court explained that under the LPS Act, conservatees have the right to a jury trial on grave disability, but the statutory framework does not require the same fixed colloquy required in criminal cases. Where the conservatee was clearly aware of her jury-trial right (she had demanded a jury trial in court), was given an opportunity to consult with her appointed counsel, and then personally and on the record confirmed that she had chosen a court trial instead, the trial court could reasonably infer the waiver was knowing and intelligent.
The court emphasized that the trial court had repeatedly engaged with B.K. about the choice and had given her counsel time to confer. Counsel’s representation that B.K. had reconsidered after consultation, combined with B.K.’s personal in-court confirmation, was sufficient under the LPS framework. The court rejected the argument that more elaborate advisements were constitutionally required.
Key Takeaways
- LPS conservatees have the right to demand a jury trial on the question of grave disability at both initial and renewal hearings.
- A conservatee’s waiver of jury trial may be inferred from the totality of the circumstances, including consultation with counsel and personal in-court confirmation.
- Trial courts are not required to conduct a fixed criminal-style colloquy when accepting a conservatee’s jury-trial waiver under the LPS Act.
- Counsel for LPS conservatees should document on the record the discussion with the client about the jury-trial choice.
- Appellate courts will affirm renewals where the record reflects awareness of the right and personal confirmation of the choice.
Why It Matters
For California LPS conservatorship practitioners, this opinion provides useful guidance on the procedural requirements for jury-trial waivers in renewal proceedings. The Second District has confirmed that the LPS Act’s jury-trial guarantees are robust but flexible — the focus is on actual awareness and personal confirmation, not on rigid colloquies imported from the criminal context.
For courts and county counsel handling annual conservatorship renewals, the case is a practical reminder to (1) make the jury-trial right explicit when the conservatee first appears, (2) provide a meaningful opportunity to consult with counsel, and (3) put the conservatee’s personal confirmation of the choice on the record. Following this template will produce records that survive appellate review even when the conservatee’s mental health makes the proceedings more challenging.