It seems that Connor is a tad wrong.
The Florida Second District Court of Appeal upheld the trial's court decision that no such prohibition exists in Florida.
When respect to the Schiavo case, the Florida Second District Court of Appeals wrote in January 2001:
Under these circumstances, the two parties, as adversaries, present their evidence to the trial court. The trial court determines whether the evidence is sufficient to allow it to make the decision for the ward to discontinue life support. In this context, the trial court essentially serves as the ward's guardian.Although we do not rule out the occasional need for a guardian in this type of proceeding, a guardian ad litem would tend to duplicate the function of the judge, would add little of value to this process, and might cause the process to be influenced by hearsay or matters outside the record. Accordingly, we affirm the trial court's discretionary decision in this case to proceed without a guardian ad litem.
Where does the law give the law give such authority? The role of a good guardian ad litem is to oppose anything the guardian tries to do that might be incorrect. The guardian, if his intentions are honest, should be able to prove them to be so.
Essentially, what's happened here is that Greer's allowed Michael to claim "the preponderance of the evidence" without being rebutted by anyone who is allowed full discovery. The appeals court is being amazingly presumptive in declaring what a guardian ad litem wouldn't find.