[mercyteapot]

Originally Posted by morte

if there is judicial error here, i would think it is the fact that the case was heard at all......if the aunt/guardian had the right to make medical decisions, who is this judge to second guess the first one? that is, the one that gave guardianship in the first place......

It is the recognized process by which parental, guardian or conservator (there, did I use enough terms to satisfy the semantics police?) rights are challenged. It wasn't something invented just for this particular case.

[subee]

Originally Posted by stevielynn

I still don't see anyone arguing for anything other than making the process hard - it shouldn't be easy to take away people's rights. Regardless of their mental or physical capabilities.

And what do you mean by "handycap"?

steph

Its the way the previous poster spelled handicap.

[JustaPatient]

Originally Posted by subee

Its the way the previous poster spelled handicap.

That was me. oops. That is my horrible spelling coming out

[Spidey's mom]

Originally Posted by JustaPatient

That was me. oops. That is my horrible spelling coming out

Ah Meg . .. . we all make mistakes. That was an interesting way to spell it and that is why I thought it meant something when subee used it - I completely missed it in your post.

Thanks subee for the explanation!

steph

[mercyteapot]

Originally Posted by Jolie

I agree wholeheartedly. If the judge doesn't believe the aunt should have the authority to make such a decision, then he needs to revoke the guardianship outright. It is not reasonable to expect a guardian to be responsible and accountable for a disabled adult's well-being while at the same tying the guardian's hands on such an important issue.

The aunt has the right to decide if she can live with this restriction or if she wants to give up adult guardianship. A judge isn't going to revoke it so long as he feels that it is in the best of interest of her niece, even if it does mean that he's asked to intervene in limited instances.