These two attorneys represent the maternal grandmother and paternal grandfather of a two-and-a-half-year-old boy who has been in the custody of Child Protective Services for almost his whole life.
That makes no sense, the attorneys say, when you have suitable blood relatives wanting to adopt.
"The child is in foster care. He's a ward of the state and the grandparent is actually getting foster care payments. It makes no sense whatsoever," said attorney Steven Pook.
Even more disturbing, these attorneys say, is CPS's reaction to a case worker lying under oath.
"Her trial testimony was inaccurate. It was false. It was clearly false and it had to do with the transfer of the child," Pook said.
Pook says the case worker testified that she took the little boy to his maternal grandmother's home on Bolivar Peninsula, did a home study, saw the pair interacting and even took a picture of the home.
"The grandmother testified under oath she took those photos and she sent them to CPS, that no CPS employee had visited her before that child was transferred," said Pook.
Pook recently sent the attorney for CPS a series of emails about the false testimony and asking what the agency planned to do about it.
"Are you referring it to the DA? Is there any kind of internal investigation? Is anything being done at all? And again met with silence," Pook said.
CPS finally acknowledged the emails and said just one word about the attorneys concerns, "noted."
In a series of Only on FOX reports, we told you how a judge got so angry about a CPS caseworker and supervisor lying under oath he imposed the largest sanctions ever against the state agency.
He even ordered CPS to retrain every employee in this region on laws pertaining to the removal of children.
"Too many times it's not a true investigation. It is one sided," said attorney Tom Sanders. "We have the power, we have the money, and this is the story we're going to tell, and I've seen a lot of good people get hurt by abuse of power by this agency."
In a prepared statement, CPS told us, "We have not seen any evidence that the employee lied. The home study was conducted according to policy and was accepted and approved by the court."