I find it interesting that you would give rights for an appointed guardian to be informed about something, but not for an actual family member, which is an interesting challenge. I say that because I have a 19-year-old son with autism—full disclosure. If someone got close to him and were somehow financial abusing him and taking advantage of him, I would want to be the person called to find that out first, if I didn't know it. It would seem odd that we would exclude me from that list of people who would be informed.
On March 24th, 2015. See this statement in context.