It's pretty clear the reason they chose not to argue for the significant harm threshold was that it would be far more difficult to do in this case.
I don't know why people keep bringing this example up especially considering that the various decisions on the Evans case specifically did not argue that his parents' decision would cause significant harm to him, as would be easy to argue in the case below https://twitter.com/MattBruenig/status/990943901002420225 …
-
-
Show this threadThanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.