What seems to be lost in this morass of a case, DJ was a client; end of story. Stubblefield, regardless of motivation, overstepped that boundary without consideration of DJ's mental capacity. As a professional, she was wrong. It seems pretty simple, if DJ was under guardianship, then he couldn't give informed consent.That plural “we” runs throughout the letter, as if Anna could not resist the call to speak for D.J., even when she knew that call had cost her everything. “Had we anticipated his family’s reaction, we would have waited,” she wrote. “He would have talked with his family and pursued emancipation from the guardianship, and I would have used the time to obtain a divorce. That would have been a better path all around.”,,,Finally, the judge delivered her own appraisal of the facts. The defendant believes she was in love with D.J., she said, and never meant to hurt anyone. Still, Anna knowingly and wantonly overstepped the bounds of lawful behavior. She violated the terms of D.J.’s guardianship because she decided, on her own, that the courts were wrong — and that she knew better than the State of New Jersey.Judge Teare allowed that Anna was, by most accounts, a well-meaning and empathic person. But the very fact of her respectability seemed to make her more blameworthy, not less so. Several times, the judge cited Anna’s intelligence — her “high intellect” — as a point against her. Anna was smart enough to see through the illusion of D.J.’s facilitated typing. She was smart enough to realize that she didn’t have consent. She was smart enough to know that D.J. wasn’t smart.
What Anna Stubblefield Believed She Was Doing - The New York Times