Tonight, we're taking a deeper look at one of the many hurdles individuals with disabilities face when it comes to their civil rights.

21 year old new Jersey resident Peter Brumlik has spent the last several years of his life petitioning a guardianship placed over him.

One, he says is both unwanted and unwarranted.

The young adult with autism is sharing his story in the hopes he can help others in their quest for self advocacy and medical decision making rights.

Senior correspondent Joanna Gagis reports.

I myself am better for me than anyone else.

Peter Brumlik is fighting a complicated court case over his guardianship as a 21 year old young adult with autism.

He spent the last three years fighting his mom's claim that he's incapable of independence because of his disability, and that she should have guardianship over all his life decisions.

I know how to make responsible decisions the best way possible for me.

Knowing all of my physical limitations and knowing what is actually best.

After years of court appearances that cost him hundreds of thousands of dollars spent down from a trust fund set up by his family that's now empty.

Brumlik mother finally gave up her petition for guardianship, but Brumlik’s troubles didn't end there.

We were alerted to the case, right around the time that Peter's mom moved to dismiss the case.

Disability Rights new Jersey got involved because of the extremely unusual way the court handled the dismissal.

The court ordered that dismissal, but imposed conditions on that dismissal.

The restrictions are mainly that Peter has to see a guardian ad litem for another two years, who would then report to his mother.

Peter's father, Charles Brumlik has supported his son both emotionally and financially, through the court challenge.

He says the second part of the conditions require that Peter see a therapist that he'd already hired privately, but still forcing disclosure of those therapy notes to his mother.

It's not unreasonable for a court to order conditions on dismissal, but typically those conditions are very minor things like fees being paid.

So the court will order that your motion or your case is dismissed if you pay the defendants attorney's fees.

But the protection, the conditions on dismissal are used to protect the rights of the defendant.

In this case, the conditions on dismissal are weaponized against the defendant.

Attorney Kelly McGuire argued against those conditions on behalf of Bromley in the appellate court.

We also reached out to the attorney representing Brumlik mother but received no response.

And while Maguire feels confident they've proven their case on appeal, she and the Brumlik are more broadly concerned about a bill introduced in both houses of the legislature that could make it much harder for someone with disabilities to maintain their independence or overturn a petition for guardianship.

Currently, you have to wait until an individual turns 18 to file for guardianship, but the bill reduces that to 17.5.

So an individual never, never obtains their own legal capacity.

At age 18, if you file at 17.5, they never have the ability to find an attorney and mount a defense of that guardianship.

Under current law, someone petitioning for guardianship has to prove the individual can't live independently.

Something she says Peter's mom failed to do.

Which is why they're fighting the conditions placed on Peter by the court.

But this bill could change that.

The bill shifts that burden and says that once a petition has been filed for guardianship, the person defending against that guardianship has to prove that they don't need a guardianship before that petition can be withdrawn.

That's guilty until proven innocent and it will burn people's money.

They won't be able to save that money for their own required use.

You need that money a specially if you're on the spectrum.

And Brumlik says he's fighting now for all those who can't afford representation like he could.

Poor people would just be crushed into the system.

If you're indigent and someone files guardianship on you, you're screwed.

Oral arguments in Peter's case were held last week.

It could now take the appellate court anywhere from three months to nine months to come to a decision in his case.

In the meantime, the lower court did put a stay on the conditions they imposed.

So those are suspended for now.

In Trenton, I'm Joanna Gagis, NJ Spotlight News.