It is almost certainly not Judge Greer's words verbatum. It's somebody's interpretation of what Judge Greer said. As to how closely it resembles what he actually said, I have no idea.
BTW, if the judge is trying to follow the law, he should also ask why Michael's behavior isn't a violation of (section number) that prohibits guardians from engaging in sexual cohabitation. Actually, this would be the spot I'd more expect Greer to focus on, if anything, since it would leave him an "out". After all, Judge Greer has previously found that Michael was providing appropriate care for Terri, and that he had no conflicts of interest. For him to change stance on his issues would be for him to go against his earlier rulings. On the other hand, if he were to find that Michael's violation violated Florida guardianship statutes, he could maintain that his earlier rulings were correct but that Michael should be removed as guardian because of the formerly-unaddressed issue.
This refers to Sexual cohabitation with the subject of the guardianship, not with 3rd parties. Otherwise, a married person could never be a guardian. You are confusing the issue.
I agree with that, but keep in mind that there was a senate bill on the table today and yesterday that would delete that as a disqualifier. I haven't heard how that went. Curious that it is out there NOW though, don't you think?
On what basis do you draw the conclusion that the Judge wouldn't have said this??
har har har mikey you have dug your own pit now sleep in it. of course mikey could fix the problem by divorcing terri and marrying jodi, but unless he can do that overnight he will get bumped as guardian.