Posted on 03/10/2005 12:22:56 PM PST by amdgmary
TAMPA, Fla. (AP) -- A judge ruled Thursday that the state's social services agency cannot delay the removal of the feeding tube keeping brain-damaged Terri Schiavo alive.
The Department of Children & Families had asked for a 60-day delay in the removal of the feeding tube, now scheduled March 18. The agency said it wanted time to investigate allegations of abuse and neglect by the woman's husband, Michael Schiavo.
But Circuit Judge George W. Greer ruled that the agency's attempt to get involved at this point was inappropriate and "appears to be brought for the purpose of circumventing the court's final judgment ... in violation of the separation of powers doctrine."
Michael Schiavo's attorney had criticized the last-minute attempt by DCF to get involved, saying that it was engineered by Gov. Jeb Bush and others in the state government who support the plight of her parents who are trying to keep her alive.
Advertisement
Michael Schiavo has gotten a court order to remove the feeding tube, contending that his wife told him she wouldn't want to be kept alive artificially. A 1990 heart attack cut off oxygen to her brain for five minutes, leaving her in what the court has ruled is a vegetative state with no consciousness. She breathes on her own but depends on a tube in her abdomen for food and water.
But her parents doubt she had those end-of-life wishes and are trying to block removal of the feeding tube.
The judge's ruling was another major blow to Bob and Mary Schindler, who have fought their son-in-law in court for nearly seven years over their daughter's fate. They dispute that she is in a persistent vegetative state, saying she laughs, cries, interacts with them and tries to speak when they visit her at her hospice.
The DCF said it wanted to investigate accusations against Miachel Schiavo - who is her legal guaridan - that included denying his wife some medical treatment and therapy, isolating her in her room with the blinds closed, failing to fix her broken wheelchair and failing to file timely guardianship plans.
In his order, Greer noted that those and many other allegations have been investigated in the past and failed to yield any evidence of abuse and neglect by Michael Schiavo.
Other than trying to appeal judge's decisions that have gone against them this week, the Schindlers will look again to the state Legislature and perhaps the U.S. Congress for help. Both bodies have bills in the works that lawmakers say could save Terri Schiavo's life.
In Tallahassee Wednesday, a House committee approved a bill requiring doctors to provide nutrition and hydration to incapacitated patients who didn't leave an advance directive. It still needs approval from two more committees before facing the full House.
Bush, who has said he would do anything within his power to save Terri Schiavo, supports the bill.
The governor in October 2003 pushed a law through the Legislature authorizing him to resume the woman's artificial feedings six days after the court stopped them. The law subsequently was ruled unconstitutional by the state Supreme Court.
On Tuesday, U.S. Rep. Dave Weldon and U.S. Sen. Mel Martinez, both Florida Republicans, introduced legislation in Washington that could give the Schindlers access to federal courts in the effort to save their daughter's life. Their bill requires that incapacitated people who don't leave advance directives have attorneys appointed to give the case a full review before artificial life support is terminated.
Again correct but Florida law states unambiguously that a guardian can not even have an "appearance of a conflict of interest". Two kids and a common law wife would seem to satisfy an appearance in this universe, the multiverse is anybody's guess.
Post a link to the law AND the transcripts from the hearings where a)guardianship was determined and b) the hearings where the allegations were presented and reviewed. Without those it is merely supposition on your part.
Late response but Michael Graham (630 am talk radio- wash dc area) this morning was defending Michael Schiavo's right to make the decision for Terri to die based on the fact that he turned down the 1 million $ (and apparently a 10 m$ offer) to hand over guardianship. I was screaming at radio as he claimed how informed he was. He basically called those trying to save Terri Black Helicopter theorists and dismissing anyone that called. He is probably still talking about it - on till 11:30 am ET I think.
2004->Ch0744->Section%20309#0744.309>Here you go.
"The court may not appoint a guardian in any other circumstance in which a conflict of interest may occur."
Splutter, laugh...ROAR!!!!!
No person who has been convicted of a felony or who, from any incapacity or illness, is incapable of discharging the duties of a guardian, or who is otherwise unsuitable to perform the duties of a guardian, shall be appointed to act as guardian. Further, no person who has been judicially determined to have committed abuse, abandonment, or neglect against a child as defined in s. 39.01 or s. 984.03(1), (2), and (37), or who has been found guilty of, regardless of adjudication, or entered a plea of nolo contendere or guilty to, any offense prohibited under s. 435.03 or under any similar statute of another jurisdiction, shall be appointed to act as a guardian. Except as provided in subsection (5) or subsection (6), a person who provides substantial services to the proposed ward in a professional or business capacity, or a creditor of the proposed ward, may not be appointed guardian and retain that previous professional or business relationship. A person may not be appointed a guardian if he or she is in the employ of any person, agency, government, or corporation that provides service to the proposed ward in a professional or business capacity, except that a person so employed may be appointed if he or she is the spouse, adult child, parent, or sibling of the proposed ward or the court determines that the potential conflict of interest is insubstantial and that the appointment would clearly be in the proposed ward's best interest. The court may not appoint a guardian in any other circumstance in which a conflict of interest may occur.
Now show me the other links, as I requested, so that everyone can get the whole picture -- not just pieces of it.
Now please address that sentence which is law in Florida and quit making unfounded accusations.
May a man with a common law wife and two children by that wife have a conflict of interest regarding his other wife?
Mary, this is an honest question. Elsewhere you have said you are not campaigning for Terri's death...
...but you could've fooled me. Which is it?
Apparently for Judge Greer it is, though it sounds more than fair and reasonable to me.
These questions have been addressed over and over via hearings and testimony. Without access to those transcripts, yes, we are making judgements out of context. That is a fair assessment.
IOW's you admit the judge could not have followed the law because the law is quite clear. Thanks for the honesty Mary.
There you go again, putting words in people's mouths. I'm saying the judge did follow the law. That doesn't mean the law should be what it is. I say only that the judge followed the law.
I know what you think Mary, I was just yanking your chain.:-}
I post the law at your request. MS is clearly conflicted as codified and you tell me the judge is following the law.
I say balogna.
I say that's your interpretation of the law, based upon an incomplete knowledge of the testimony and hearings over the years.
In your opinion, should the law be bowed to if it is evil or unjust? Or should it be challenged?
I understand your reticence to answer because any rational person would say "Of course he may have a conflict" and by that acknowledgement you admit the Judge has erred.
A bit of intellectual honesty goes a long way.
Then the law should be changed. But taking the law into our own hands is not the answer.
A rational person would say that this issue has been reviewed thoroughly and found to be without substance.
We have the right to petition and peaceably assemble...yes? We have the obligation to shine a light on an evil law...yes?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.