The Director of Developmental Services (the “Department” or “Director”) and Deborah Findley (“Findley”) have filed competing petitions for conservatorship for Findley’s son, Andrew Findley. The Department filed its Petition of Appointment of Probate Conservator of the Person on October 19, 2018 (the “Petition”). The Department filed its First Amended Petition of Appointment of Probate Conservator of the Person on December 11, 2018 (the “Amended Petition”.) The Court grants the Department’s request that it take judicial notice of the Amended Petition and Notice of Hearing.
Findley now demurs to the Petition filed on October 19, 2018. In the alternative, Findley moves to quash the Petition. The Department opposes both motions.
As to Findley’s motion to quash, Findley cites no authority that such a motion is proper, or that the Court has authority to quash a petition. Findley’s motion does not argue that the Court lacks jurisdiction, but rather makes similar arguments to those raised in t
Hearing Date
December 05, 2019
For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.
The Director of Developmental Services (the “Department” or “Director”) and Deborah Findley (“Findley”) have filed competing petitions for conservatorship for Findley’s son, Andrew Findley. The Department filed its Petition of Appointment of Probate Conservator of the Person on October 19, 2018 (the “Petition”). The Department filed its First Amended Petition of Appointment of Probate Conservator of the Person on December 11, 2018 (the “Amended Petition”.) The Court grants the Department’s request that it take judicial notice of the Amended Petition and Notice of Hearing.
Findley now demurs to the Petition filed on October 19, 2018. In the alternative, Findley moves to quash the Petition. The Department opposes both motions.
As to Findley’s motion to quash, Findley cites no authority that such a motion is proper, or that the Court has authority to quash a petition. Findley’s motion does not argue that the Court lacks jurisdiction, but rather makes similar arguments to those raised in t