I don't post very often - I love reading the site and benefit greatly from it, but seldom feel I have much to contribute - but I thought I'd speak up here. I have a decade of experience prosecuting child abuse and neglect law in family court (think foster care/custody cases and not criminal/jail cases). The first 6 years of my career was in the meat grinder of Manhattan Family Court juggling 175 cases at a time. I can't even count the number of times I've stood up and asked a judge for orders of protection on behalf of women and children at the hands of scumbags.
My experience doesn't exactly square with what is presented here. I've never practiced in Massachusetts, and these family law/custody issues are heavily state specific and fact specific. That being said, I have a few thoughts that might be helpful (or not!).
Corsi quoted an article, and EE expressed (completely reasonable) surprise that the little girl is still in state custody. I don't know this for sure, but my hunch is that the little girl is living with the maternal grandparents while technically in state custody. This whole process is a bit tricky, but the gist is that Jared Remy has parental rights until they are legally severed. Obviously, the same facts that have Jared behind bars waiting trial show that he is unfit and unsafe to have the child in his care, which is why the state had to take custody. However, the legal process of severing parental rights is defined and requires due process. There are a few avenues to proceed with a TPR (termination of parental rights) - typically (pursuant to ASFA) they are initiated when a child has been in foster care a minimum of 15 of the most recent 22 months. There are some fast tracks, and murdering a sibling or parent is one of those. However, Jared isn't convicted yet. Once he is, the TPR would be a formality (the state could get a motion for summary judgment granted I'd imagine), but for now they are in a holding pattern. The TPR is important because it frees the child to be legally adopted. Given her young age, it is highly desirable that she be legally adopted. If the state just kicks custody to one of the grandparents, it loses its interest in pursuing the TPR. So, in the big picture, I understand why the state is maintaining custody over the child.
The reason I think the child is probably with the maternal grandparents is the article mentions them uprooting from Virginia to live in Massachusetts. By law, a child in state custody cannot be placed across state lines unless an ICPC (Interstate Compact for the Placement of Children) is approved. As I know firsthand from tons of experience, an ICPC is a bureaucratic and logistical pain in the ass. The local child welfare office has to send a request to the state capital, who then forwards it to the state capital in the state the potential placement reource lives, who then forwards it to the local county office, who then assigns a worker to check out the residence and do background checks. Once a report is generated, it goes back to the state capital, forwarded to the original state capital, and then back to the local office. It usually takes 6-8 weeks. Legally, there is no getting around this. My guess is that in the aftermath of the tragedy, the maternal grandparents probably had this explained to them, and were probably told they could stay in Virginia and get the kid in 6 weeks or they could move up to Massachusetts and get the kid as soon as they find a place to live and have it checked out.
My suspicion is that the state placed the child with the maternal grandparents as a kinship foster care resource. If that is true, the maternal grandparents would be receiving a small stipend each month for caring for their granddaughter (approximately $450/month). The state would also have any therapies/counseling lined up and the child would be eligible for Medicaid, by virtue of being in state custody. I'd pretty much guarantee the court ordered that there was good reason to suspend any father/child visits in jail. It sounds like both the maternal grandparents and the paternal grandparents filed for guardianship, which is typical, and the case will sit in limbo until Jared is convicted and have his parental rights terminated. At that point, the court will award custody/guardianship to someone and dispense with the case. It is possible the judge puts in the final custody/guardianship order some provisions for the paternal grandparents visitation, but in my experience judges hate doing that because it just invites constant litigation in the future. If the child is with the maternal grandparents right now, then absent substantiated abuse/neglect findings I can't see a judge uprooting the child. It wouldn't surprise me if at some point the state tried to talk them into formal adoption, for the sake of permanency.
As for the other issues being discussed in the thread, I have a lot of thoughts swirling around but don't have it in me to reduce it to writing right now. I will say I've greatly appreciated reading the back and forth, even if some of it feels a bit naive to me. I do think Rovin Romine serves as a good proxy for my general thoughts.