It wasn't a judge that ruled in her favor. It was an attorney subbing in for the judge.
That made the whole thing seem so curious.
Mrs. Ladybug
However, it doesn't seem as if the "ruling" has been changed. And how in heck can an attorney "sub" for a judge? It should go to another judge... (Not that that would necessarily help) This is truly despicable.
First, the normal, ordinary and common scenario has the lawyer for one of the parties draft the final order for the judge to sign. That's right. The judge doesn't even write the order, the winning party does.
In Mae's case, the first order came from the language in Gaddy's Petition for Emergency Guardianship. There was no adverse party in that proceeding, held on Friday, April 1st.
The second hearing was on Monday, April 4. This proceeding starred out as adversarial, and Mae's attorney filed an Objection to Gaddy's Motion for Guardianship. However, the case was not litigated. Mae's side made a tactical decision to shift the medical treatment decision out of the judge's hands and into the hands of a team of doctors. In hindsight, that was a good tactical move. So, also in that case, the final order was drawn up by attorneys on both sides.
Following that, quite a few people "went public," including Judge Boyd. Once he went public with more than the contents of the written orders, he lost the cloak that hides possible bias.