And the parents have filed a petition in 2002 to remove Michael as guardian, but the Lord High Almighty Judge Greer won't let it move forward.
Worse, when the parents filed a different motion challenging Michael's authority to act as guardian pending the hearing, Judge Greer ruled that such a motion could only be brought by those with no other remedy at law. Since the parents filed a guardianship challenge, that was obviously a remedy at law that was available to them, and thus there was no need to allow them to challenge guardianship.
An attorney friend has looked over the pleadings to have Michael Schiavo removed, and he noted a number of serious defects--reliance on hearsay evidence as causes of action, et cetera.
Bottom line: if you come to court to argue a position that is radically at odds with "presumptive" law (i.e., what the law defaults to without any pleadings being filed), you'd better have solid reason for doing so, and be able to back up that reason with solid evidence.
Also, Michael Schiavo's managed to use some of the dumber moves by the parents as counterarguments, including the times they hired some real out-and-out quacks.