All rights that never previously existed, were first established when someone spoke to the need to have them. The main burden on the bringer of these new rights is to show that by not having them a material harm would be caused to the one without the right. In this case, we have a right hat already exists, the right to privacy, and we have a man that had no right to invade her privacy, so he did what was the only thing he could do. He went to court to establish that right. The court needs to weigh the degree of material harm that would fall on the man seeking this new right against the already established right to this woman's privacy. In the Judges opinion, she erred on the side of the Mother, HOWEVER, she did not nor did the Mother from what I can tell, made a showing of how if this man was allowed to be there that she would suffer material harm in so doing.
That's all I've been saying, and a showing of harm, real, tangible harm, is the foundation for all Western Laws. Laws are established to prevent harm from coming to those who would otherwise not be protected with a remedy if the law did not exist.
Tim-
