A few points of disagreement & clarification:
1. While I understand the view held by many that Barry being appointed guardian is somehow unjust, I disagree with the characterization that Barry "wrongfully seized" any assets. He went through a court proceeding created by Indiana's General Assembly. The process was open & anybody could've lodged an objection to Barry's guardianship if they wished to do so.
Some have criticized Indiana Code § 29-3-1-7.5, which defines "incapacitated person" to include -- among other things -- "an individual who...cannot be located upon reasonable inquiry." That may indeed be part of the Indiana Code that should be altered, but -- until it is -- section 29-3-1-7.5 is good law.
2. There's been no evidence of "coercion" on Barry's part against his daughter.
3. Even assuming that Barry "coerced" his daughter, Barry didn't need his daughter to sign anything that showed agreement with the guardianship. Indiana Code § 29-3-6-1(a)(4)(A) requires that notice of the guardianship petition be provided to the incapacitated person's adult children but their assent is not necessary.
4. Likewise, Barry didn't need GM to agree to the guardianship. In fact, GM would only have to be given notice if Suzanne had no adult children, per Indiana Code § 29-3-6-1(a)(4)(A). Even if GM had agreed to Barry's guardianship, it would've meant nothing, as Suzanne has an adult child.
I have no idea why Barry would even ask GM about the guardianship because -- from a legal perspective -- the adult daughter was the proper person to serve with notice, not GM.
5. Barry did not have Suzanne "declared 'incapacitated.'" The court -- after a hearing -- found that Suzanne was incapacitated because Suzanne could not "be located upon reasonable inquiry."