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?
Greep acted within his legal discretionary scope. Your post is long (and long on guesswork), but let me just focus on what I think your central point is:
>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.
What legal right? Once you grow up and get married, your parents lose pretty much all standing. They retain a sort of "interested party" status which courts entertain (such as filing Victim Impact Statements, etc.). But the rebutttable presumption mountain is very high.
Greer decided to let adults make adult decisions and live with them. He had no legal obligation to entetain being circus-master in what was clearly going to be a 99% emotional, 1% legal issue.