Ableism, Heterosexism, and Sexism: Sharon and Karen

The story of Sharon Kowalski and Karen Thompson told by Joan L. Griscom from Race, Class, and Gender in the United States, by Paula Rothenberg, was a perfect and clear example of how intersectionality involves our experiences in the institutions set up in the United States. Although we'd like to believe that these institutions are in place to regulate and protect everyone in society, this obviously is not true.
Griscom gives evidence to how the "failure of the medical system was consistently supported by the legal system". Sharon did not recieve the proper care and facilities needed to make the fullest recovery possible, and as this kept happening under the medical system, we must keep in mind that the legal system is in place to regulate it. Kowalski's father obviously didn't have Sharon's best interests in mind, he just wanted Karen to stay away from her, even though Karen was the best thing towards Sharon's recovery process.
This story pretty much just pisses me off. The fact that no matter how much Karen did and proved that she was what Sharon wanted and needed, the institution was not set up in their favor; it was against them.
The three modes of oppression, that Griscom refers to, plays a big role in these women's experiences, but it seems as if this case had to happen for everyone outside of LGBT to realize how much our institutions need some reevaluating. It's important to know how these three modes of oppression worked against the couple. Ableism, Heterosexism, and Sexism, all three seem very invisible in society, but that's only because it was set up that way, in favor of able bodied, heterosexual, men (i.e. Sharon's father). That's why he won guardianship over Sharon, because the institutions were and are designed in his favor. He did everything to slow down Sharon's path to recovery, all to make sure Karen could not see her, why? because these two women, were lesbians in love, and he believed that his daughter was not able to communicate what she truly wanted.
Why, in the state of Minnesota or anywhere else does a women absolutely need a man to be accountable for her? Why does she need a guardian to be a man? If this had been a heterosexual couple, the legal battle of guardianship would not have even happened. Nobody would have said anything in opposition. Why? because as long as a man was there to oversee Sharon, she would've been fine right? WRONG. Sharon knew what she wanted, and she knew how to communicate it, but everyone in opposition just assumed she was incompetent, she no longer held any intelligence.
What can we do to change our institutions and systems? We need to know now, how they affect us in our everyday lives, and we need to make it known. Like Karen in the past Griscom tells us that Karen originally believed that our social institutions are basically fair and that their problems were merely personal problems. What is fair? Does it even really exist in the U.S.?