Sterilization Of Developmentally Disabled Woman Is Incidental To Medcally Necessary Treatment Ordered By Court.

A developmentally disabled woman suffers from numerous health problems, including an abnormally long and heavy menses and debilitating migraine headaches that usually coincide with the onset of her menses. After numerous other treatments for her severe menstrual bleeding and migraines failed, her doctors recommended a hysterectomy and oophorectomy. The trial court found Probate Code section 2357 and its provisions regulating court-ordered medical treatment governed the petition, rather than Probate Code section 1950 et seq. and its provisions regulating sterilization of developmentally disabled adults. In affirming, the appellate court stated it agreed section 2357 governs because the objective of the proposed surgery is to treat medical conditions, not to prevent the woman from bearing children, and stating: “Although the proposed surgery would result in [the Developmentally Disabled woman’s] sterilization, that is the incidental effect of the medically necessary treatment.” Also, the appellate court noted the trial court incorrectly applied the preponderance of evidence standard of proof instead of the more stringent clear and convincing evidence standard, but concluded the error to be nonprejudicial because there was no indication the court would have reached a different conclusion if it had applied the proper standard. Conservatorship of the Person and Estate of Maria B.  (Cal. App. Fourth Dist., Div. 3; July 31, 2013) 218 Cal.App.4th 514.