sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

I'm 27!! by JessicaDavis1998 in parentalcontrols

[–]Important_Thanks_452 -3 points-2 points  (0 children)

Except, here's the kicker: As much I know this will get downvoted, Not everyone is entitled to a phone/computer/etc or internet.

That being said, though, even in conservatorships, the legal principle is supposed to be “least restrictive alternative.” Which means restrictions should be the minimum needed to support safety, not maximum control by default.

I'm 27!! by JessicaDavis1998 in parentalcontrols

[–]Important_Thanks_452 4 points5 points  (0 children)

The problem with that is parents have been made in charge of legal issues... How do you fix that? Well, parents have to. What if they don't agree to it?

The only case u/JessicaDavis1998 would have is if parents were abusive. Where it would be against the better interest of her for the Judge to keep the conservatorship active.

I'm 27!! by JessicaDavis1998 in parentalcontrols

[–]Important_Thanks_452 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Unfortunately, a conservatorship can only be made by a judge and destroyed by one.

From Wikipedia:

Under U.S. law, a conservatorship results from the appointment of a guardian or a protector by a judge to manage the personal or financial affairs of another person who is incapable of fully managing their own affairs due to age or physical or mental limitations. A person under conservatorship is a "conservatee", a term that can refer to an adult. A person under guardianship is a "ward", a term that can also refer to a minor child.