Q: I asked a question yesterday about custody of my son I believe it was Kyle persaud, he asked if I was mother or father

A: If you are the mother, then, yes, the grandmother was required to give you notice before she can take your son.

Yesterday I cited the U.S. Supreme Court case of Armstrong v. Manzo. There, the Court said:

"In disposing of the first issue, there is no occasion to linger long. It is clear that failure to give the petitioner notice of the pending ... proceedings violated the most rudimentary demands of due process of law. "Many controversies have raged about the cryptic and abstract words of the Due Process Clause but there can be no doubt that at a minimum they require that deprivation of life, liberty or property by adjudication be preceded by notice and opportunity for hearing appropriate to the nature of the case." ... "An elementary and fundamental requirement of due process in any proceeding which is to be accorded finality is notice reasonably calculated, under all the circumstances, to apprise interested parties of the pendency of the action and afford them an opportunity to present their objections. ... Questions frequently arise as to the adequacy of a particular form of notice in a particular case. ... But as to the basic requirement of notice itself there can be no doubt, where, as here, the result of the judicial proceeding was permanently to deprive a legitimate parent of all that parenthood implies."

So, if you were not given any notice at all, you may be able to ask the Court to vacate the ruling.

If this was an emergency custody case, the Court should have set a hearing within ten days of the first order, and given you notice of that hearing.