"Judge Orders Doctors To Proceed With Toddler's Surgery"

When I see headlines like this, I automatically stop and read the article. While I can contemplate the theoretical nature of these situations, I wonder how I would feel if I were in the place of the parents of the child.

As I read the story, I couldn't quite figure out who was "right."

I was a little frightened by the restriction placed on the father's visitation...Rogers, Riley's dad, doesn't object to the surgery, but he can only visit his son four hours a week under heavy supervision.

So this child...this BABY...is in a hospital all alone? with little contact with family? undergoing a surgical procedure with no mommy or daddy to hold him and assure him everything will be all right?

Then I read the last line of the article..."The surgery would implant a catheter into Riley's abdomen that would then be used for dialysis if it became medically necessary."

I am horrified.

This judge is removing parental rights and forcing surgery on a baby...surgery that is not yet medically necessary???

Either there is more to this story or the best interests standard has run off course here.