They Placed her with her loving, concerned dad, how is that Not the dad's fault?
Imo, the reason it isn't the State's fault is b/c the father was stating clearly that he cared about his daughter's well being, and he wanted custody of her for the purpose of protecting her. So it stands to reason that he would also protect her from his father.
What was the State to do? Keep her in a lice infested home with a drug addict mom, or place her in the custody of a dad who appears to have concern for his daughter's well being, which turned out to be a lie.
Dad should go to jail too.
Was the mom really a drug addict?
Was the mom really filthy?
Apparently he proved his case to State that the mom was what he said she was, correct? Or are the courts just granting kids to dads b/c they can?
Did dad have a job, was he able to provide for his daughter when he petitioned the court for custody? Was the court under the impression that dad and daughter would not be in that home for very long, not knowing that she would still be there ten years later?
Dad brought the petition before the courts, and apparently proved his case against the mom, and convinced the courts that he would provide a safe place for his child. The fault lies with the dad.
It is possible that what he really wanted was to not be responsible for child support payments, and to collect it from her mom rather than pay it to her. This is another reason the mom should sue.
That child was sure dealt a lousy family that's for sure jmo, oc.
Just wondering where the maternal grandparents are, and where is the teen living now?
How old is the teen now? Is she 18 yet? If not, is the dad behind the lawsuit?
If she wins, won't he become responsible for the money since as far as we know he still has custody of her.
yuk