It's my understanding (thanks to another poster) the confusion was due to a gap in the wording of the law which did not specify a child be 18 or older to claim the body. So, Seidlin gave the body to a baby.
However, in the same legislation, that age provision (18 years or older) was included when mentioning the same "legally authorized person" to get the body, so this appeals court WOULD have access to read the legislature's speeches, documents, etc....
...and thus perceive that the Florida legislature's intention was that this "legally authorized person" would be the child if the child was 18 or older...and if not, then the next person in line to receive the body would be the parent of the deceased.
Now, I know if I can understand this legal reasoning, then SURELY that appeals court can understand it??
It seems according to the rules of the court they should rule for Virgie to have the body since Anna's baby is not yet 18 yrs. old. How can they rule otherwise, if they are following the Florida laws?
Seidlin did not consider the "intention" of the Florida legislature, but it's my understanding the appeals court usually will consider the "intention" of the legislature's laws.
Since the legislature referred to the authorized person as being 18 or over all throughout the speeches, etc., then it seems clearly the laws were passed with that age limit in mind.
Probably has more to do with the age when someone can sign legal documents. I'm sure Funeral Parlors make you sign contracts and the purchase of a stone would be by contract.