It seems his custody rights are intact, and her parents haven't made their case. Why is that? Are all the courts, advocates, judges wrong? Is it all just "illegal"?
Seems to me it's been argued and argued, ad infinitum.
"If her husband was so evil, and so obviously acting against her best interests, if he was taking actions in a suspicious manner to prevent doctors and judges to properly evaluate her condition, then it should be a slam-dunk to have his custody rights rescinded. This sort of thing is done all the time in custody battles."
Because this isn't about custody, it's about abortion and anything that threatens the "right" to kill inconvenient people.
Incorrect again, my good man! Judge Greer won't allow the guardianship hearing to move forward. It was filed in Nov. 2002.
You would think so, but for some reason, Judge Greer kept ruling for her husband. Someone mentioned, that he hasn't even been filing the annual guardianship report, or something like that, which is required by guardians.
I haven't followed all the intricate details of this case, but there are some major problems, precisely, because why would a judge not allow the parents or even an impartial guardian be named for Terri, who keeps her best interests at heart, instead of her husband, who actually has a conflict of interest.
Criminals on death row have all kinds of safeguards, and this poor, innocent woman is being murdered by her husband with the approval of a judge.
How so? Basically one judge has made the decisions, and he has a conflict of interest. The husband is required by law to file plans about her guardianship and he hasn't done it. How do you explain how he is in violation of the law, yet the judge hasn't forced him to do it?
her husband-in-name-only (whose catholic girlfriend and mother of his two children would like a clean slate to marry in the church - ) has the legal authority regarding Terri - and Terri has been denied, again and again, to have legal representation to defend her -