And so we must ask why Judge Greer and the Florida Superior Courts simply ignore the law as written by the Florida Legislature.
Well, there has to be at least a possible conflict. Obviously, any person "may have" a conflict depending on the facts and while I am not familiar with Florida case law construing that provision, there would have to be at least some fact-based possibility of a conflict. Thus, my question. In order to make the argument, one must have at least a theory as to how the conflict could arise.
This is not a trick question. What's the theory behind your "self-evident" assumption and what are the facts supporting the possibility? Didn't the parents' lawyers argue this to Judge Greer? To the Florida Supreme Court?
"The question is not whether he has a conflict it's whether he may have a conflict."
It all depends on what the definition of "is" is.