In this case, decided on remand from the California Supreme Court’s recent decision in Conservatorship of O.B. (2020) 9 Cal.5th 989, the Second District held that sufficient evidence supported the trial court’s granting of a petition to appoint a conservator of O.B., a person with autism.
“In Conservatorship of O.B. (2020) 9 Cal.5th 989, 1012, the California Supreme Court reversed the judgment rendered in our prior opinion filed on February 26, 2019. The court remanded the cause to us with directions 'to reevaluate the sufficiency of the evidence in light of [its] clarification' of how an appellate court should review a 'finding made by the trier of fact pursuant to the clear and convincing standard.' (Id., at pp. 995, 1012.) As directed, we have reevaluated the sufficiency of the evidence in accordance with the Supreme Court’s clarification of the standard of review. We conclude that the evidence is sufficient.
…A person with autism is not automatically a candidate for a limited conservatorship. Each case requires a fact-specific inquiry by the probate court. 'Autism is known as a ‘spectrum’ disorder because there is wide variation in the type and severity of symptoms people experience.' <https://www.nimh.nih.gov/ health/topics/autism-spectrum-disorders-asd/index.shtml> [as of Nov. 17, 2020], archived at <https://perma.cc/UQ4C-5VE3>. Based on the facts here, we affirm the order establishing a limited conservatorship of appellant’s person.”