Debra_Law wrote:The Judge dismissed the guardian ad litem's report concerning Michael's conflict of interest by stating something to the effect that "regrettably, money overshadowed the entire case providing a conflict of interest for all parties."
No Debra. On page 3 of the document Foxfyre just posted, he makes the "regrettably ..." remark in describing the history of the case. The comment on the guardian's testimony is on page 5, and it says:"The Guardian Ad Litem felt that this testimony standing alone would not rise to clear and convincing evidence of her intent. The court is not required to rule on this issue since it does have the benefit of the testimony of his brother and sister-in-law". He goes on to provide arguments why he thinks those two witnesses reliable. In other words, the judge
didn't dissmiss the guardian ad litem's report for the reason you stated -- he didn't dismiss the report at all.
You may want to read
the opinion too. It certainly taught me a thing or two.