We had the fun experience this week of Joe's guardianship hearing. We were only seeking a limited guardianship instead of a full guardianship. We really just wanted control of his medical decisions and to be informed of his financial information.
You would think getting limited control would be easier than full control, but apparently that is not the case. The first struggle came when the judge read the doctor's affidavit. His wording was "too restrictive" because it did not spell out that Joe could drive. Huh? The kid could legally drive before he was 18 but if we tried to get a guardianship he couldn't drive anymore unless the doctor specifically gave his consent. Could someone please explain that one to me??
When I called up the doctor to explain the confusion he confessed he had never done a limited guardianship. Seriously? Shouldn't those be more common?
When all was said and done, I felt like breaking a few laws myself. I wonder how guardianship works if the guardian is in prison? Best not find out. Deep breath, Julie.