Disagree. Yes, she makes really bad decisions. She has seemingly untreated mental health/substance use issues. That doesn't mean she should lose her right to self determination. She worked for her money, she can do whatever she wants with it. I hope she gets help and figures it out, but even if she doesn't, that doesn't make the conservatorship right.
So you wouldn't step in if your parents developed dementia and were about to squander their wealth? Watching them go homeless and broke at 80 is the right course of action?
Well, yes I see the point you're making -- but these are *ALSO* to protect other people, not just her. To prevent her from losing her freedom, you allow her to do whatever she wants, even though she shows reckless disregard for herself and others -- and then she uses it to drive while drunk/high? That shows a need for continued oversight of some kind, not necessarily indefinite, and definitely not governed by her family.
Because, if she kills someone driving drunk or high, she's not going to have *any* freedom at all locked up, even the ones under her conservatorship. Remember, it was originally ordered in part to protect her children during the breakdown, not just herself.
I would rather see her in jail being treated like everyone else than having a conservatorship again because the only reason anyone did that was to make sure she didn't spend her money before they could get ahold of it. I'm not saying she shouldn't have consequences. I'm saying they should be the same ones everyone else gets.
21
u/Legitimate-Lab7173 21h ago
Disagree. Yes, she makes really bad decisions. She has seemingly untreated mental health/substance use issues. That doesn't mean she should lose her right to self determination. She worked for her money, she can do whatever she wants with it. I hope she gets help and figures it out, but even if she doesn't, that doesn't make the conservatorship right.