- By definition, unify means “to make or become a single unit”, by prefacing it with RE, that implies that it is remaking a single unit that has been broken. The only reunification with her family would have been with the birth father, which was not possible here (even this is arguable since the birth father never had legal custody of Lexi or even presumed father status – Page 9). People will say she’s reunifying with her sisters (we address that in another misconception), but the key points are:
- There was no previously existing relationship to reunify, even with her biological siblings.
- One of the sisters is 1 year old, nothing to reunify, but still a blood sibling. However, at the time this all should have ended (after the first appeal), there was no 1 year old. Not to mention that, had the law (both ICWA & WIC) been followed, the sibling would have been placed with the Pages as well. Sadly, ICWA often has the effect of turning the best interest of the child on its head.
- The other sister lived in LA County up until a year ago. At the time this should have ended, it seems the County & tribe were looking at destroying the possibility of that relationship developing several states away. And now, according to her own social media, she is back in LA County with the man she calls dad in LA.
- Two sisters make it to Utah around the same time a year ago…what was the motivation for their moves to Utah?
- Further, the above statement is a misconception in and of itself. Reuniting families is not the true goal of child welfare. The goal of child welfare is quite obviously to ensure the welfare of the child. Reunification is simply a means to that end, but is not an end in and of itself. In fact, reunification and placement with relatives is so important precisely because it is detrimental to a child to break existing attachments. When a child needs a placement, it is always best to place the child with people she is already familiar with. When Lexi needed a home, there were no familiar people in her life who could take her in, and the tribe approved of the Page family chosen by LA County child welfare professionals. Now, Lexi is being separated from the family with whom she has developed a strong primary bond and attachment. This is the very thing that child welfare seeks to prevent.
- “the fundamental duty of the court is to assure the best interests of the child, whose bond with a foster parent may require that placement with a relative be rejected” (In re Lauren R. (2007))
- The relative placement preference does not “operate as an evidentiary presumption in favor of placement with [relatives] that would overcome the juvenile court’s duty todetermine the best interests of the child… The relative placement preference is not a relative placement guarantee [emphasis added].”(In re Joseph T.(2008) 163 Cal.App.4th 787.)
- Concerning the relative placement preference under Wic Sec 361.3, subdivision (a), “By its own terms, then, the statute did not supply an evidentiary presumption that placement with a relative is in the child’s best interests.” (In re Stephanie M.)
- Reunification is often the initial goal, but is not always possible. When it isn’t possible, the next goal is permanence & stability. To quote two parties from this exact case:
- In regards to why LA County changed policy to require all foster homes be certified as adoptive placements, Leslie Heimov, who is the director of CLC said: “They changed the policy to prevent children from having to be moved if reunification was not successful,” says Heimov”. http://www.scpr.org/news/2013/08/20/38791/foster-bed-shortage-straining-la-countys-child-wel/ Reunification was not successful in this case, yet Heimov’s quote for the Pages is very different than what she said in 2013
- The first judge, Amy Pellman, said it best in 2003.“Pellman wants to see more change. She envisions major reform in the foster care system. She wants more support and services to help families stay intact. For those children who must be taken away from their parents, she says she doesn’t want to see them bounced around. “I want kids’ first placement to be their last placement.” What changed? She moved to the ICWA court room. http://archive.calbar.ca.gov/Archive.aspx?articleId=51601&categoryId=51437&month=8&year=2003
- After reunification services are terminated, the law presumes that remaining with current caretakers is in the best interest of the child.
- “Notwithstanding any other law, the application of any person who, as a relative caretaker or foster parent, has cared for a dependent child for whom the court has approved a permanent plan for adoption, or who has been freed for adoption, shall be given preference with respect to that child over all other applications for adoptive placement if the agency making the placement determines that the child has substantial emotional ties to the relative caretaker or foster parent and removal from the relative caretaker or foster parent would be seriously detrimental to the child’s emotional well-being. As used in this subdivision, “preference” means that the application shall be processed and, if satisfactory, the family study shall be completed before the processing of the application of any other person for the adoptive placement of the child.” (Wic Sec 366.26, subdivision (K))
- “The presumption that arises after termination of reunification services is a rebuttable one. It is presumed, at that point, that continued care is in the best interest of the child.” (In Re Marilyn H)
- “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)
- This article, written by pediatricians, speaks to the many reasons why permanence & stability is important: http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/106/5/1145.long
Save Our Lexi
IT HAS BEEN 3187 DAYS SINCE LEXI WAS REMOVED FROM HER FAMILY
Footer
Take Action
We need your active support to help us Bring Lexi Home. Please sign our Petition on Change.org and send a letter or email to your congressional representatives and senators asking them to draft legislation for the abolishment of the Indian Child Welfare Act.
Help Financially
The legal fight to bring Lexi home to her friends and family will be emotionally and financially exhausting. Our supporters have setup a Save Our Lexi GoFundMe Page to help offset our legal expenses. Any contributions are sincerely appreciated and will go 100% toward bringing our daughter home.