e Guardianship of Kowalski, 478 N.W.2d 790, 792

(Minn. App. 1991), review denied (Minn. Feb. 10, 1992).

       Under the guardianship statute, “[a] court may appoint a limited or unlimited

guardian for a respondent only if it finds by clear and convincing evidence that: (1) the

respondent is an incapacitated person [3] and (2) the respondent’s identified needs cannot

be met by less restrictive means, including the use of appropriate technological

assistance.” Minn. Stat. § 524.5-310(a) (2014). But “the court shall grant to a guardian

only those powers necessitated by the ward’s limitations and demonstrated needs and,

whenever feasible, make appointive and other orders that will encourage the development


3
  “‘Incapacitated person’ means an individual who, for reasons other than being a minor,
is impaired to the extent of lacking sufficient understanding or capacity to make or
communicate responsible personal decisions, and who has demonstrated deficits in
behavior which evidence an inability to meet personal needs for medical care, nutrition,
clothing, shelter, or safety, even with appropriate technological assistance.” Minn. Stat.
§ 524.5-102, subd. 6 (2014).

                                              9
of the ward’s maximum self-reliance and independence.” Minn. Stat. § 524.5-310(c)

(2014). “The best interests of the ward should be the decisive factor in making any

choice on [her] behalf.” In re Guardianship of Autio, 747 N.W.2d 600, 603 (Minn. App.

2008) (quotation omitted).

       On remand, the district court incorporated the findings from its initial order. In

accordance with our instructions, the court properly analyzed the competing guardianship

petitions in light of the current custodial arrangement. The district court also found that

Heidi was incapable of independently exercising the following rights and powers: (1) to

establish her place of abode within or without the state; (2) to provide for her care,

comfort, and maintenance needs; (3) to take re