Company Response
3/1/2022
This case involved custody of three (3) grandchildren of Mrs. Hedegard. Her younger daughter had two children and customer pursuant to the kinship program in Pennsylvania was given temporary physical and legal of the children.
Secondly, they had a 2nd daughter, who trafically died. Her minor child, was placed in temporary custody of Mrs. Hedegard. There is no question when it comes to actually caring for the children that she does a good job. However, when we were in court the last time on 4/26/2021, she demonstrated her lack of stability. While we were in the hallway outside the courtroom when we received an indication on how the Judge was going to rule on the case, she became hysterical and screaming to the point that the Judge heard her in the courtroom. That did not help her case.
Concerning the case, on April 26, 2021, we were having a hearing concerning the child of her deceased daughter. A dispute arose as to whether she and her husband should continue to have custody or whether the natural father would have custody of his son. The law clearly favors the natural father. After the hearing, the judge directed that the Father, receive primary physical custody of the child, and granted her and her husband reasonable visitation with the child. When she heard this, she went inot a hysterical screaming in the hall, said the court system was corrupt and I was corrupt and she and her husband fired me at that time. She did not ingrate herself to the court during the time period. When we got into the courtroom, the judge gave the father primary physical custody and the grandparents visitation.
Concerning the other young children, the mother, had a serious drug problem. Because of her problems, her two children, were placed temporarily with their grandparents Mrs. Hedegard. Further, because Mrs. Hedegard's behavior, which I never observed with their two grandchildren BCCYS wanted her examined to determine her stability, which she objected through me. The mother, got her act together and wanted to have her children returned to her. I have no firsthand knowledge of what happened concerning the two (2) young daughters because Mr. & Mrs. Hedegard fired me on 4/26/21. My understanding is that they were returned to the natural mother.
It appears that the court in both cases gave preference to custody to the natural parent over the grandparents. That is the law in the Comminwealth of Pennsylvania.
The problem that they have is that they don't understand that even though they love their grandchildren very much, the natural parent is given preference to having custody of the child over the grandparents. That is the law in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. There was nothing in the parent backgroung at the time of the hearing that would warrant the court to take the children away from the natural parents. Even though Mr. & Mrs. Hedegard did a nice job caring for the grandchildren when they had custody of them, when the parents got their act together the children were going to be returned to the natural parents. When that happened, the Hedegard's accused the court of being corrupt and fired me as part of the dishonest court system.
This is what happened in this case. I did all we could help Mr. & Mrs. Hedegard gain custody with their grandchildren. However, their behavior substantially hurt their case.
Read More