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?
Two wives, one legally, one common law and two children by the second in conjunction with a large sum of money when the proceedings started to remove nourishment from wife number 1. I don't think you have an argument and I thik the Florida courts are corrupt. "may" have a conflict under those conditions is, as I said, self evident.
Didn't the parents' lawyers argue this to Judge Greer? To the Florida Supreme Court?
Certainly, to no avail. Which is why the federal government should intervene. Once again Florida courts are renegade.