They contradict themselves. They say it's not like a regular conservator-ship because she makes many of her business decisions (so why have it) but then state she isn't in her right mind to understand her mental issues and why she needs it. This is exactly why people see the whole deal as fishy. It doesn't make sense. They are essentially using the conservator-ship to control who gives her business and legal advice instead of letting her choose cause obviously her mental capacity is the same at close to 40 as it was in her mid 20s (I'm being sarcastic). That's not what conservator-ships should be used for, why doesn't the courts see that? She's spending more on it than she is on herself.