g) On September 6, 2011, the date on which the first meeting between the maternal grandparents and the child LM was to be held, the custodial family did not arrive at the indicated place, and therefore the contact arrangement ordered in the judicial decision of August 31 did not take place; h) On September 20, 2011 the Court of Appeal for Children and Adolescents rejected the appeal for annulment filed by the custodial family and confirmed the order of August 31, 2011 in full, providing no further information on the grounds of the decision; i) On September 27, 2011 the first meeting took place between the child LM and the maternal grandparents, in the presence of a forensic psychologist and a social worker, in compliance with the order of September 31, 2011; j) On November 7, 2011 the Ombudsman’s Office for Children and Adolescents filed a brief before the Judge of first instance requesting that the measure be extended to the biological parents; k) On November 8, 2011 the Judge confirmed the court’s decision of August 31 (to not extend the contacts), providing no information on the grounds for the decision; l) On November 14, 2011 the Ombudsman filed a motion for reconsideration of the previous decision, which was “ambiguously resolved without interaction between the child and his parents,” according to the representatives. m) On February 20 the O-A couple communicated to the Court for Children and Adolescents that they had relinquished their role as the custodial family of the child. In a hearing on this matter, which took place on the same day that this Court held the hearing (supra Having Seen 6), the maternal grandparents indicated that they would accept custody of the child LM, and n) On February 24 the court issued an order revoking the custody of the child held by the O-A couple and granted custody to the maternal grandparents. 6. During the private hearing held in the instant matter, the State reported on the contact arrangements made between the child LM and his biological family, which it considered should be implemented in a gradual manner, starting with the child’s maternal grandparents in order to prevent any harm to the child, and claimed that it had complied with the provisional measures. Subsequently, the State presented the order issued by the Court of Children and Adolescents of February 24, 2012 which revoked the custody of the child LM awarded to the O-A couple and granted said custody to the maternal grandparents, and established the method and conditions for the handover of the child. Consequently, the State requested that the Court lift the provisional measures. 7. The representatives, while acknowledging that a rapprochement had taken place between the child LM and his biological family, claimed that the contact arrangements ordered had not been implemented gradually, but rather minimally, given that the arrangements only applied to meetings with the maternal grandparents, at a shopping center, and that since the first meeting they had only spent a total of 20 hours with the child. The representatives pointed out that the Ombudsman for Children and Adolescents had requested, on several occasions, that the contact arrangements be extended to include the parents of the child, something that was rejected by the Court for Children and Adolescents, which interpreted that the interaction with the “biological family” as indicated in the Order of the InterAmerican Court of July 1, 2011 did not include the parents. With regard to the comments made by the State during the hearing, the representatives stated that no final decision had yet been made and that the contact arrangements had not 4