Roman law, like other legal systems, recognized that some individuals, although they have become sui iuris, continue to require supervision, especially (in the Roman view) with regard to their property
From this recognition there derived a rather haphazardly concocted law of guardianship whereby a sui iuris person could be subject to the control of a tutor or curator; the extent of this control, however, varied widely from case to case.
Young children presented a particular challenge.
The harsh Roman demographic regime meant that many children became orphans before reaching adulthood. The Roman Empire offered only limited public assistance in handling orphans; and, as we have seen (Cases 148-154), adoption of sui iuris persons was actually discouraged, obviously because the Romans disliked eliminating independent households. Therefore, they instead relied heavily on tutelage. Archaic statute required the child's nearest male agnate to become tutor, but this system had a clear potential for abuse since the agnate would often be an heir if the child died intestate. As a result, from an early date it became common for a child's pater familias to name a tutor in his will; the power to name a testamentary tutor went hand in hand with the pater’s right to dispose of the child's inheritance if the child died before reaching adulthood (Cases 173-176). When both these possibilities failed, by the late third century B.C. the praetor, in concert with other magistrates, could name a tutor; serving as tutor was conceived as a public dutyThe powers and responsibilities of these tutores were extensive. Managing the ward's estate meant maintaining not only its financial well-being but also, indirectly, the welfare of the ward. In principle, the tutor enjoyed the status of an owner of the property in question, though this still left some room for action on the part of the child in tutelage. But for the tutor there was a palpable downside to wielding so much authority.
Tutores could be compelled to take up their role by a magistrate and were liable if they failed to do so. Acting as the guardian of a minor-age child might itself entail liability under one or more headings if the tutor acted fraudulently or simply without due care.Tutelage ended with adulthood, which came quite early: twelve for girls, fourteen or so for boys (Case 6). The Romans quickly realized that this was too early, since children so young often lacked sufficient judgment about their own welfare. Legal protections for young adults eventually resulted in creation of curatores, optional guardians who exercised no regular control over wards but could give them trustworthy advice particularly on business matters.
A different type of curator was used for adult sui iuris persons who were considered to be insane (furiosi) or who displayed chronic tendencies to squander their own property (prodigi). The roots of this institution are very old and clearly centered first on the protection of the ward's property, mainly in the interest of potential heirs. But by the classical period, particularly in the case of the insane, the ward's welfare was also closely supervised by the curator.