Many people are confused about the say that the biological father currently has. Some also think there is conflicting information about it. Lexi’s biological father still has “rights”, but his reunification services have been terminated. The court views those as two distinctly different things, however the termination of reunification services does carry a lot of weight:

• “After the termination of reunification services, the parents’ interest in the care, custody and companionship of the child are no longer paramount… in fact, there is a rebuttable presumption that continued foster care is in the best interests of the child.” (In Re Stephanie M)
• “Parental rights do not spring full-blown from the biological connection between parent and child. They require relationships more enduring…the mere existence of a biological link does not merit equivalent constitutional protection. If the natural father fails to grasp the opportunity to develop a relationship with his child, the Constitution will not automatically compel a State to listen to his opinion of where the child’s best interests lie.” Lehr v. Robertson (1983)

This perspective shown in the above case law, is reflected in the opinions of the judges currently hearing Lexi’s case. To quote the presiding judge in the recent oral arguments talking to the bio father’s attorney: “What standing does your client have in terms of trusting an opinion or view….concerning the welfare of this child, putting aside his past extraordinary misconduct?” This from another judge: “He gave up all interest in this child years and years ago…I’m at a complete loss at to why five years after he has abandoned the child he has standing to make any argument in an appeal.” And again the presiding judge: “His conduct is reprehensible…he has made bad choices all along…why would we give great weight, or any weight at all, to somebody who has abandoned the responsibilities of being a father.” That’s a great question, one of common sense.

The biological father did not relinquish his reunification services for Lexi at the time of need (before removal). Instead, he waited until she was already living with the Pages for nearly a year— when he failed to reunify. Only THEN did he choose to try to control the situation by negating his own responsibility and agreeing to placement with a family member. “After reunification efforts failed, the father, the tribe, and the Department of Children and Family Services (Department) recommended that the girl be placed in Utah with a non-Indian couple who are extended family of the father.” (Page 3) “By September 2012, he had communicated to the Department that he no longer wished to continue reunification services. “ (Page 7) That is not looking out for Lexi’s best interests, but rather looking out for his own interests, hoping that he would be able to continue a relationship with her without bearing the responsibility.

Some even go so far as to claim that Lexi is ineligable for adoption simply because the father’s parental rights have not been terminated. This is clearly a misguided notion. At this moment, the court is considering which adoptive placement is right for Lexi. A lack of TPR does not prevent the court from choosing an adoptive home for the child. As we see from the judges’ comments during oral arguments, the court will decide what is best for Lexi, and give very little regard to what he thinks about where his child should be placed.