'Ailina
Inactive
BBM.
This strikes me as strange.
My understanding is that the mediated divorce agreement included a provision that momsters' parents were prohibited from contact with Ethan, and *also* with SS. In my experience--and I'm very familiar with family law in my state, but *not* in Utah (I practiced family law in my state for 6 years, but am not doing so currently)--this is semi-enforceable. There can be a condition of placement that says when a child is with a parent, they will not allow the child to have contact with person X. However, there cannot be a provision that says "Person X will not contact (child, parent, etc.)", *unless* Person X was a party to the action (to give Person X a chance to contest, etc.).
I've seen some discussion on here wondering about the ban on contact from SS's parents with both SS and Ethan--I've wondered as well. I'm assuming that Ethan's dad gave the info for this obituary. Since the obituary writer includes the information regarding maternal grandparents--I'm guessing (a guess only) that the ban on contact was something SS insisted on.
I wonder why????
I brainstormed this very thing before. The conclusion I came to -- based on SS's motivations for initiating a restraining order against Michelle -- was that SS initiated the restraining order against her own parents, too, perhaps as a means to control them, maybe to punish them or create some kind of leverage.
In this case, I think JS would've gone along and let SS "do her thing," even if he was neutral or indifferent about it, since he may have perceived it to be "her problem."
Now, after this tragedy, it makes sense SS's parents and JS would reach out to each other. They've all three lost a precious child they all loved. SS is the common denominator who did not suffer a loss (to emphasize "suffer" in SS's context).