[jwalsh07]

PS: It would seem the proper manner of handling this is simply for the court to decide that if the appointed guardian in not conflicted. If not then, the guardian controls, if so then we move down the hierarchy to the next proxy. I could understand that, not like it, but understand it.

But that's not what was done here. The Judge assumed the role of proxy and trier of fact and ordered the tube removed.

There is a differnce and the distinction is stark and it is my prediction that in the years to come we will both see the unintended consequences of these holdings.

[antiRepublicrat]

PS: It would seem the proper manner of handling this is simply for the court to decide that if the appointed guardian in not conflicted. If not then, the guardian controls, if so then we move down the hierarchy to the next proxy. I could understand that, not like it, but understand it.

That is an excellent idea for a change to the law, but you might want to put in something about life insurance. That would mean anyone who stood to receive life insurance would lose their guardianship if contested. It would be good if a "whole picture" view could cause a proxy change, as MS would have lost his guardianship a long time ago due to his statements and actions.

The Judge assumed the role of proxy and trier of fact

As prescribed by law at the request of the appointed proxy. That's my point.

I'm just saying lay off the judges. Sometimes like in the 9th they're being activist. But sometimes they're following the law as they're supposed to, no matter how distasteful the result may be.