Does the Superior Court have jurisdiction to proceed with the taking of evidence as to incompetency and to make findings thereon?

It is well settled that the court had jurisdiction, after due notice given, to proceed with the taking of evidence as to incompetency and to make findings thereon even though the incompetent voluntarily absented himself from the hearing. Guardianship of Walters, 37 Cal.2d 239, 243, 231 P.2d 473. As was said in Sacks v. Superior Court, 88 Cal.App.2d 808, 811, 199 P.2d 396, 398: 'Statutes enacted to protect a person against his own misguided acts or against the avarice and greed of others are conceived in the noblest of paternalistic principles for the preservation of the estate and the security of such person and for the serenity of [158 Cal.App.2d 209] society as well. If an alleged incompetent could defeat the superior court of jurisdiction by a mere refusal to respond to a citation, the misguidance of his person and the losses of his estate would fall far short of the protection and security intended by the authors of the Probate Code. The contention that the court is divested of jurisdiction by the naked act of a refusal to respond to a citation is contrary to the very purpose and spirit of the law. Such statutes do not constitute pawns to be used in strategical games of wit but are enacted for social welfare and for the protection of those who are so unfortunate as to suffer brain decadence or disorders. It is inconceivable that the legislature could have intended that the superior court should not proceed to try the petition accusing such person because the alleged incompetent is not 'produced in court."