69 P.3d 318 (2003). In conducting this review, our primary purpose is to ascertain and effectuate the intent of the legislature. Id. Further, “it is the duty of this court to construe two statutes dealing with the same subject matter so that the integrity of both will be maintained.” Gilbert v. Sacred Heart Med. Ctr., 127 Wn.2d 370, 375, 900 P.2d 552 (1995). ¶19 Petitioner mistakenly focuses on whether appointment of guardians is discretionary or mandatory. The plain language of the TAA is unambiguous and requires that appointment of guardians under the TAA be governed by TEDRA’s procedures. Because TEDRA makes appointment of guardians discretionary, so too must appointment of guardians be discretionary under the TAA. See In re Estate of Jones, 152 Wn.2d 1, 10-11, 93 P.3d 147 (2004) (<HOLDING>). ¶20 In any event, the parties focus on the
holding that one provisions permission for removal only for  reasons specified  in a second provision incorporated the second provisions catchall phrase  for any other cause or reason which to the court appears necessary  emphasis omitted quoting in re estate of jones 116 wn app 353 363 67 p3d 1113 2003 rcw 1128250 holding that in connection with crossmotions for summary judgment the substance of the plaintiffs motion and her silence in response to the defendants characterization of her claims as being based on violations of specified statutory provisions established abandonment of claims based on other statutory provisions set forth in her complaint holding that the hearing provisions of the ina supersede the provisions of the apa holding that statutory notice provisions for notice of default and opportunity to cure were waived by provisions of note as to one obligor though provisions applied to coobligor who used property as residence holding that such provisions are valid