What evidence supported the ex parte findings before 8:57 a.m. on February 12?
Why asked: The order says it relied on the verified petition and the entire record. The supplied petition contained no physician's report, bank records, treating charts, or transaction evidence supporting the financial allegations.
Current answer: The supplied source set does not identify any additional pre-order evidence.
Needed: Complete court file as it existed at entry, hearing record if any, and clerk metadata.
When did Virginia receive the petition and notice of appointment?
Why asked: SR-002 proves that Phillip was emailed the petition at 5:41 p.m. February 11. SR-004 proves that he was emailed the order at 4:42 p.m. February 12.
Current answer: The supplied documents do not establish Virginia's receipt or service time.
Needed: Returns, affidavits, hand-delivery record, attorney-ad-litem record, or acknowledged receipt.
Who changed the banking contact channels and initiated the January 10 transfer?
Why asked: Bank notices and transaction reports establish the changes and transfers but do not identify the operator.
Current answer: Unresolved. The receiving account listed Margaret as primary owner and Virginia as secondary owner; that does not itself identify the user or determine consent.
Needed: Access audit, device/IP history, teller or online-banking logs, signature records, and authorization documents.
What supported the petition's alleged 2021–2023 transfers and card transactions?
Why asked: The petition supplied dollar ranges and described unauthorized activity but attached no corresponding records.
Current answer: No supporting records are present in the supplied publication packet.
Needed: Complete statements, card records, transaction authorizations, and account-ownership records for the alleged period.
How were contrary medical findings handled?
Why asked: The petition alleged dementia-like incapacity without a physician's report. SR-006 later reports capacity, recovery, no dementia diagnosis, and no conservatorship recommendation across summarized providers.
Current answer: The prepared summary establishes a concrete conflict requiring review, but the underlying charts and evaluator files have not yet been supplied for public audit.
Needed: Original medical charts, examination reports, testing instruments, evaluator source lists, and hearing record.