Our 9-year-old grandchild lived with his grandmother since he was about 8 months old, and his grandmother has had custody since December 2011. In September 2016 there was a custody hearing in which the court ordered shared custody, with a review in December. The child was supposedly represented by the Council for Childrens Rights (CFCR).
Item 7 of the September court order reads: "Defendant shall ensure that the child attends any and all extracurricular activities as scheduled and on time."
At the time the child was enrolled in i9 flag football. The mother never got the child to his game on time and was absent for 53% of the child's playing time.
The court was also concerned with the child's school tardiness when in his mother's care. CFCR misrepresented the number of tardies while in the mother's care during the 3-months between hearings.
Prior to the September hearing, when CFCR asked the child where he preferred to live, he told them he wanted to stay with his grandmother. CFCR recommended permanent custody to the mother. And prior to the review hearing CFCR again asked the child where he preferred to live. Having been ignored by CFCR previously, this time he told them he wanted to go back and forth.
CFCR and the blew all this off and the court rubber-stamped CFCR's recommendation to give the mother full permanent custody.
I wonder what impression it has made on the child now that CFCR failed him twice and the court failed him twice.
For more details see my review of CFCR.
All USA
Our 9-year-old grandchild lived with his grandmother since he was about 8 months old, and his grandmother has had custody since December 2011. In September 2016 there was a custody hearing in which the court ordered shared custody, with a review in December. The child was supposedly represented by the Council for Childrens Rights (CFCR). Item 7 of the September court order reads: "Defendant shall ensure that the child attends any and all extracurricular activities as scheduled and on time." At the time the child was enrolled in i9 flag football. The mother never got the child to his game on time and was absent for 53% of the child's playing time. The court was also concerned with the child's school tardiness when in his mother's care. CFCR misrepresented the number of tardies while in the mother's care during the 3-months between hearings. Prior to the September hearing, when CFCR asked the child where he preferred to live, he told them he wanted to stay with his grandmother. CFCR recommended permanent custody to the mother. And prior to the review hearing CFCR again asked the child where he preferred to live. Having been ignored by CFCR previously, this time he told them he wanted to go back and forth. CFCR and the blew all this off and the court rubber-stamped CFCR's recommendation to give the mother full permanent custody. I wonder what impression it has made on the child now that CFCR failed him twice and the court failed him twice. For more details see my review of CFCR.