"A guardian may be removed for any of the following reasons, and the removal shall be in addition to any other penalties prescribed by law: (11) Development of a conflict of interest between the ward and the guardian".
Do you deny that a married man who has betrothed himself to another woman would have an interest in seeking his wife's death, regardless of what his wife would want?
So there is NO law that says an additional relationship is illegal. His wife had already made her desires known. Your interpretation of his motives is just that. I asked for the relevant information, you failed prima facie.
It's also worth noting that 744.446(1) states "The fiduciary relationship which exists between the guardian and the ward may not be used for the private gain of the guardian other than the remuneration for fees and expenses provided by law." Where did Michael get the money for his house and car? And when he was first trying to kill Terri--before her trust fund was drained, and thus when he would have stood to inherit hundreds of thousands of dollars--would not such funds have constituted "private gain"?
Standard fiduciary clause. Again, you look for things that do not exist. Mike had the legal right to deal with the fund and the legal responsibility to have her wishes carried out.
Thanks for finally putting an end to the legal fiction you folks hang on to. The Schiavo debacle makes it clear everyone should have their final wishes in writing (I now do). Yes, well, proper notice is such a silly legal nicety. I think I will sue you, ask the newspaper to mention it, then not get around to actually serving you. When you don't show, I'll ask the judge to hold you in contempt for not being there when I wanted you to be.
Do you think Greer's failure to provide written notice was accidental?
Irrelevant. You either have notice or not. Why would Greer err on purpose?
Thank you for helping me clarify the legal matters. And for removing once and for all the myth of Mike's so-called "illegal" dalliance (done at the urging of Terri's parents as you very well know).
To whom?
That was the problem - she never did.
Such desires, if they existed, would have to be expressed in a properly witnessed and notarized document (Living Will or Medical Power of Attorney).
Teri Schiavo never signed such a document.
Why do you suppose the law requires such a meticulously drafted document in the first place?
Actually, there are statutes forbidding open adultery, but they're essentially unenforced and, since Lawrence, probably unenforceable.
The issue, however, is not whether Michael's engagement was illegal, but whether there were conflicts between Michael's interests and Terri's. I would state that conflicts of interest clearly existed, and the engagement made one such conflict (of many) absolutely undeniable. Had Terri's condition somehow improved, it would have been good for Terri but bad for Michael. Michael thus had an interest in ensuring that Terri's condition did not improve, even though such improvement would have been good for Terri.
Do you think Greer's failure to provide written notice was accidental?
Irrelevant. You either have notice or not. Why would Greer err on purpose?
Is it really not obvious? Greer didn't want to have the hearings. He couldn't just declare that he'd never hold them, since the parents had the legal right to demand them. And if he'd scheduled them to occur in the year 2038, the parents would have been able to go to an appeals court and state that Greer's scheduling was patently unreasonable.
So Greer scheduled them as far in the future as he thought he could get away with. Then he granted continuances just short of the point that an appeals court would declare things were getting ridiculous. Then he made it so Michael wouldn't have to actually show up. The only plausible behavior I can see for Greer's behavior is that he didn't want the hearing to take place.
Had the hearing taken place, Michael would have been required to answer difficult questions under oath. It would be quite likely that Michael would give answers which, if true, would prove him inelligible to continue guardianship. If that occurred, Judge Greer could not allow Michael's guardianship to continue without being struck down by the appeals court. Although trial court judges may determine any witness to be credible or not credible, and appeals courts nearly always abide by such determination, some careless words from Michael could render that question irrelevant: if his statement were true, he'd be inelligible for guardianship; if it were false, his perjury would make him inelligible. No evaluation of Michael's credibility would allow a reasonable judge to conclude he remained an elligible guardian.
Putting off hearings to avoid holding them is not normal and proper behavior for judges. Greer obviously didn't want Michael's fitness as guardian questioned. One might reasonably ask why.
It's worth noting that Greer was required to oversee Terri's trust fund. If Terri's guardianship were ever transferred to anyone else, the trust fund books would have to be audited by the new guardian. Any misappropriations would fall not only on Michael's head, but also on Judge Greer's.
If you believe that Judge Greer would have liked someone to audit those books, I'd like to interest you in a wonderful piece of architecture. It's a suspension bridge, which while primarily used today for vehicle traffic, is also capable of surviving the weight of a full load of pedestrians. It features vertical cables for support and diagonal cables for stability, and is really quite lovely. Can I interest you in that?
Conflict of interest - The first court appointed guardian ad litum, stated Michael had a CONFLICT OF INTEREST because he would get Terri's trust funds if he killed her. I agree with him. Schiavo should have been removed as guardian. He broke many guardianship laws, but was protected by Judge Greer.