Off topic, but this is why I read the comments first when I see links to some websites. They simply take too long to get to the point. I spent 5 minutes on this and all I've learned so far is that for some reason, courts deem certain people incompetent and appoint guardians. I don't know why they do this, how the assess the people, and how the guardian benefits. I want to find out but I lack the patience to read through the New Yorker's somewhat pompous style and rely on the quotes in the top comments.
There are some people who are incompetent. The most drastic case is somebody in a comma - they are unaware and unresponsive, but the body is breathing and there are all other signs of life. Somebody needs to make decisions that that person is unable to make.
In this case it kind of fits the point/arc of the story. The victims in the story have no idea why they do this, how they assess people, how to fight it... somebody just showed up unannounced one day with a court order and viola, mom and dad's legal autonomy is somehow gone and their assets are freely mismanaged & stolen. Police & judges do not even pretend to care.
As for why the "guardians" do it, it's right there for you in the subtitle.
Absolutely. I lost track of the article and started skimming to get the a resolution. There didn't appear to be one. I do recognize this is likely due to my own lack of attention span :)
Isn't this the normal writing styke for a lot of US traditional media? European newspapers I think start from the key point they want to get across and expand from there.
It's long-form journalism and I think it's perceived to have more value than bullet-point style reporting. While there can be value in long-form stories, 98% of the time I just want the bullet points so I can decide if the story is worth reading.
