I'm my mom's legal guardian since she had a stroke, so I'm supposed to make sure she's not making any major financial or legal errors. At the same time, I'm also supposed to support her autonomy. Our usual financial discussions surround how she wants more cigarettes and isn't happy with the amount she can afford- to which end she calls me about once a week and asks for more, knowing she has no money until the month starts over again. When that fails, she tells me not to pay her housing and care bill because she thinks they don't earn the money. :/
Throughout her entire life, she only went to the dentist when her teeth hurt, so she has needed extractions and dentures for many years, which are not covered by insurance. She's getting an inheritance and I think she needs to spend the money on her dentist, but I'm willing to bet she's going to want to spend on random things. Pre-stroke, she would have done the same. Obviously, I can't force her to get the treatment, but I could theoretically refuse to let her have the money for anything else. And, I know she will be furious with me. No telling what a judge would say if it came down to it. Obviously, my goal is to get her on board with treatment, but failing that...
If you were in my shoes, would you insist the money be held for treatment or let her spend it any way she wishes?
And, for what it's worth, she does get regular toothaches and goes in for exams, but then refuses to treat the tooth. Also, she's young, and could be around for another 20 years or so, so having functional teeth is kind of important and this may be the only way she'll ever be able to afford the care she needs.
I had a family member in a similar situation.
First rule ... necessities come first. ALWAYS. Then, IF there is money left over, they can buy things the person wants (but doesn't necessarily need).
Second rule ... if the guardian has to spend their own money, keep a ledger of it. And refer to Rule #1. (The ward pays for all necessities first.)
Though our situation, the person in charge of the finances would not let the family member spend ANY money on cigarettes or alcohol. The ward did take it to court, and the guardian said they are responsible for the person's health interests as well as finances - and everybody knows cigarettes cause cancer, and the ward was an alcoholic. The judge ruled in favor of the guardian. > But in our case, the guardian had legal AND financial guardianship. Those are not always together.