So, I wonder – what’s wrong with letting a kid control their money, even if they are incompetent? Even if their parent is incompetent? Why is it that money makes the difference?
We probably don’t know but the very tip of the iceberg. I’m sure there are many, many details of this case that we aren’t privy to. Knowing that our opinions are based on minimal data, what do you think of this girl’s assets being controlled by the government, even though she is the one who built up the business?
Is this really about money? Or I’m wondering now, if really, this is about relationships. And isn’t it always about relationships? If this family were connected and working together, would this be an issue? Is this about money, or about how, when there is a breakdown in family cohesiveness, it’s the government that comes in and is our parent for us?
Because it seems to be, that’s what the government did in this case. They are the “real” parents, sweeping in and saying, “Well, you guys obviously aren’t getting along, so you’re going in a time out, and until that time out is over, we’ll put your toys up here on the shelf.”
What do you think?