I just can't muster the outrage about the guardianship process. The elder daughter was notified as required by law. To my mind she is in as good a position as anyone to speak for her mother and was allowed, even encouraged, to have legal representation on the issue. We also know that the Moorman family was aware even though they weren't officially notified (not required by law). There was ample opportunity for these parties to speak against the guardianship and nobody took that opportunity. I don't see that the process failed or was inadequate.
In this case, I think WSers are judging the process based on the assumption that BLM is guilty of some criminal act related to SM's disappearance. So the question being contemplated here is "how can a husband guilty of disappearing/conspiring to disappear his wife be allowed to control her assets?" As we are constantly reminded, WS is a discussion forum and this is perfectly allowed without any regard to evidence, reasonableness, legal standards, or even reality. However, transferring back into the legal world (IANAL!), the question being decided is more along the lines of "is there any evidence this person cannot act in the missing person's best interest?" IMO
We haven't talked about it much but sort of evidence could be presented to convince a judge against granting guardianship? (Other than the missing person turning up or evidence the proposed guardian is guilty of some crime directly related to the missing person, of course.) If there was evidence of marital strife would that be sufficient? Maybe if that marital strife was specifically related to how assets would be used?
As related to this case, I think it would have been interesting if someone had objected to the guardianship specifically on the grounds that how BLM has acted since SM's disappearance shows that he isn't qualified to act as her guardian because he doesn't have her best interests at heart. IMO IANAL