The 17 year old is obviously a minor - it seems fairly obvious that ONE of his parents or a guardian is going to accompany him to court. The custodial parent seems like the obvious choice, since the juvenile is PRIMARILY in that parent's custody and control. However, if you wish to give a good impression to the juvenile court in cases such as this, it probably wouldn't hurt if BOTH parents came together (if possible) to appear with their child.
That depends on the policy.
Not arbitrarily. The custodial parent would have to receive permission from the court for the change in residence.
Then the child should petition the court (or have the non-custodial parent petition the court, more likely) to modify the custody order. If the custodial parent is "gone for most of the year" and leaving the child in the care of someone else, the court will probably consider that a significant factor.
Yes, if the state require consent from the legal guardian since the non-custodial parent is not the legal guardian. And yes, because the non-custoduial parent does not have the legal right to make that kind of decision for the child. The non-custodial parent could face sanctions from the court. The custodial parent could sue to have the non-custodial parent pay to have the tattoo removed.
The parent who is considered the custodial parent.
No. The custodial parent has been assigned the responsibility for the child by the court. And until the minor reaches the age of 18, they live where their parent tells them to.
see links
No you don't and if you custodial parent is making you, then you can bring it up with the court and they will put a stop to it.
No. The 16 year old must wait until the case is settled. * Legally, no, but it is highly unlikely the court would order the minor to return to the custodial parent's home unless the non custodial parent was not supplying an acceptable living environment.
No.
It depends on the circumstances and related court orders.
See links below