[jwalsh07]

See #1 above. No court found anything justifying ther denial of his guardianship.

The Court of Appeals found he had an apparent conflict of interest. That is grounds for denial of guardianship in Florida and grounds for removal.

But I am curious as to why so many freepers, and especially my libertarian pals here, seem to think contracts that are violated remain contracts. Forget the court, as a matter of course, do you think should wink at broken contracts in general or just the marriage contract?

[Trinity_Tx]

It's irrelevant. He gave up his role as guardian on the point of whether or not to pull her tube. Read the 2DCA ruling linked to on my page. They say loud and clear that he did not make the decision.

He turned it over to the court then went in on the same footing as her parents to let it hear both sides.

Once the court decided it was her wish, it was treated as though she had a directive. Note that their decisions all *order* the tube removed - they do not say *the guardian is allowed* to remove it if he chooses.