You really ought to read the June 6 2nd DCA opinion before you commit yourself to this statement.
From that opinion: "The Schlindlers have urged this court to conduct a de novo review of the evidence in this case, primarily because of the finality of this decision for their daughter."
The court then correctly pointed out that "it would be improper to reveiw such a fact-intensive determination using a de novo standard." The Judges of the appellate court then "closely examined all of the evidence in this record". They go on to say:
"We have repeatedly examined the video tapes, not merely watching short segment but carefully observing the tapes in their entirety. (emph. added) We have examined the brain scans with the eyes of educated laypersons and condsidered the explanations provided by the doctors in the transcripts. We have concluded that, if we were called upon to review th guardianship's decision de novo, we would still affirm it". (emph. added)
It would seem that while the de novo review "is not appropriate" from a legal standpoint, what they did in arriving at their decision was a de novo review.
If you would take the time to read this opinion in its entirety you will see the lengths the Court went to in arriving at their decision.
When I read this extrordinary decision, I wept.