(1) For a minor. The court may appoint a conservator for the property or financial affairs of a minor if the court finds by clear and convincing evidence that appointment of a conservator is in the minor’s best interest, and:

(a) If the minor has a parent, the court gives weight to any recommendation of the parent whether an appointment is in the minor’s best interest; and

(b) Either:

(i) The minor owns funds or other property requiring management or protection that otherwise cannot be provided;

(ii) The minor has or may have financial affairs that may be put at unreasonable risk or hindered because of the minor’s age; or

(iii) Appointment is necessary or desirable to obtain or provide funds or other property needed for the support, care, education, health, or welfare of the minor.

(2) For an adult. The court may appoint a conservator for the property or financial affairs of an adult if the court finds by clear and convincing evidence that:

(a) The adult is unable to manage property or financial affairs because:

(i) Of a limitation in the adult’s ability to receive and evaluate information or make or communicate decisions, even with the use of appropriate supportive services or technological assistance;

(ii) The adult is missing, detained, incarcerated, or unable to return to the United States;

(b) Appointment is necessary to:

(i) Avoid harm to the adult or significant dissipation of the property of the adult; or

(ii) Obtain or provide funds or other property needed for the support, care, education, health, or welfare of the adult or of an individual entitled to the adult’s support; and

(c) The respondent’s identified needs cannot be met by a less restrictive alternative.

(3) The court shall grant a conservator only those powers necessitated by demonstrated limitations and needs of the respondent and issue orders that will encourage development of the respondent’s maximum self-determination and independence. The court may not establish a full conservatorship if a limited conservatorship or other less restrictive alternative would meet the needs of the respondent.