The judge's role in incompetent's incapability

The incompetent, also called immature, is someone whose occupying in his own possessions is not rational, whether he has not accomplished maturity after adolescence or has faced prodigality after maturity and adolescence. The incompetent is among the interdicted people, but the question is that just occuring the prodigality results in the incompetent’s interdiction and the elimination of the prodigality leads to the cancellation of the interdiction, or the constancy and cessation of interdiction needs the judge’s sentence. The jurists have many different ideas about this matter. Some believe that interdiction gets confirmed as soon as prodigality occurs and eliminates as it obviates; they also claim that there is no need to judge’s sentence. Others believe that whether confirmation or elimination of interdiction is based on the judge’s sentence. There are also some who believe that the judge’s sentence is not necessary in the confirmation of interdiction but essential to eliminate it. Another group believes that just further confirmation of interdiction and not its elimination needs the judge’s sentence. Finally, there is a group of jurists who believe that the interdiction due to failing to accomplish maturity and facing prodigality after maturity are different. They believe that in the first case, judge’s sentence is not needed whether to confirm or eliminate interdiction, but it should be present for both actions in the latter.