(1) A person who has been determined to be incapacitated retains the right:
(a) To have an annual review of the guardianship report and plan.
(b) To have continuing review of the need for restriction of his or her rights.
(c) To be restored to capacity at the earliest possible time.
(d) To be treated humanely, with dignity and respect, and to be protected against abuse, neglect, and exploitation.
(e) To have a qualified guardian.
(f) To remain as independent as possible, including having his or her preference as to place and standard of living honored, either as he or she expressed or demonstrated his or her preference prior to the determination of his or her incapacity or as he or she currently expresses his or her preference, insofar as such request is reasonable.
(g) To be properly educated.
(h) To receive prudent financial management for his or her property and to be informed how his or her property is being managed, if he or she has lost the right to manage property.
(i) To receive necessary services and rehabilitation.
(j) To be free from discrimination because of his or her incapacity.
(k) To have access to the courts.
(l) To counsel.
(m) To receive visitors and communicate with others.
.......
Anyway, this case illuminates the legal system quite well. At the very least, take it as it presents itself.