The IPO continued
The family, along with the court and social worker, played a role in perpetuating the corruption in this case.
Prior to the filing of the Immediate Protective Order (IPO), a maternal relative filed for custody of the child on April 24, 2017, and requested visitation rights. Eight days later, the mother was subject to an IPO filed by the relative who had custody.
As a result of the IPO, the mother's visits with the child and other family members were halted. While the mother was prohibited from seeing the child, she was still able to maintain contact with another child in her care. Despite the restrictions, the mother was able to obtain images and videos of the child.
The judge granted the Interpersonal Protective Order (IPO), fully aware that this would prevent the mother from seeing the child until the order was lifted.
The maternal relative of the mother claimed that the mother was being untruthful and should not have disclosed personal experiences related to her childhood. This relative instructed the mother to refrain from discussing these matters further, stating that the mother's decision to share her story with the court and others was the reason she was unable to see her child. The relative emphasized that the mother should not have shared this information with anyone else.
The InterpersonalProtective Order (IPO) was granted on May 11, 2017, and remained in effect until May 11, 2019.
This order prohibited the mother from contacting the child or the individual with custody for any reason, including visitation or communication with the child.
At this point, the family member who had custody of the child stopped visitation based on the alleged claim that the mother had spoken to others about sexual abuse within the family. However, these allegations were not made by the mother. Despite this, the Interpersonal Protective Order (IPO) remained in effect.