- The Pages were not the first to oppose Lexi’s move. Lexi’s guardian ad litem initially objected to Lexi’s move, which is why she had to later withdraw it: “Alexandria’s attorney withdrew her objection to Alexandria’s change in placement” (Page 10)
- By the time reunification services were terminated, Lexi had been in the Page’s home for nearly a year. Even CLC’s director acknowledges the importance of preventing moving children when reunification fails: “”They changed the policy to prevent children from having to be moved if reunification was not successful,” says Heimov. Moves are disruptive for kids, and the idea was to be able to plan “concurrently” for the child’s long term future.” (http://www.scpr.org/news/2013/08/20/38791/foster-bed-shortage-straining-la-countys-child-wel/). All of the experts & parties agreed that Lexi was thoroughly bonded and attached at the time reunification services terminated. In fact, had it not been for the effect of ICWA, no one would have even tried to move Lexi from her home, because everyone understands that it is very harmful for a child to be moved after she grows close to a family. Children who bond with their foster/adoptive homes love their family just as children who grow up in the home of their biological parents. It is just as painful for any bonded, foster/adoptive children to be moved as it would be to remove a child from their biological home. As you look through the other questions, you will see substantial evidence of the importance of continuity and even the CA legal precedent for that.
- If you are a parent with children in your home, imagine what it would be like for someone to take away one of your children – think of what it would be like for your child to be removed from you. Just because Lexi has a Choctaw ancestor does not mean that her emotions are any different from the emotions of other children – to say something different is just racist.
- When the move to Utah was first ordered, the Pages believed there was good cause to depart from the ICWA’s placement preferences. They also had concerns over whether Lexi’s best interests were truly being considered. Upon appeal, the higher court determined that the lower court did not properly take Lexi’s best interest into account when determining if there was good cause to depart from the ICWA placement preferences.
- “However, the court erroneously required the P.s to prove a certainty that Alexandria would suffer harm if moved, and failed to consider Alexandria’s best interests or her bond with the P.s in determining good cause.” (Page 14-15)
- “Third, the court failed to consider Alexandria’s best interests in deciding whether the good cause exception applied.” (Page 34)
- “The court also committed legal error by failing to consider Alexandria’s best interests as part of its good cause determination. The court’s written statement of decision does not reveal whether the court considered Alexandria’s best interests as one of the key factors in determining whether there is good cause to depart from the ICWA’s placement preferences.” (Page 38)
- “We recognize that a final decision regarding Alexandria’s adoptive placement will be further delayed as a result of our determination of the merits of this appeal. That delay is warranted by the need to insure that the correct legal standard is utilized in deciding whether good cause has been shown that it is in the best interest of Alexandria to depart from the ICWA’s placement preferences.” (Page 40)
- To suggest Lexi should have been moved in 2013, is to throw two things out the window, due process of law and Lexi’s best interests.
- During the recent oral arguments the attorneys pointed out that the opposition, during this appeal, went as far as arguing that Lexi’s individual best interests should NOT be considered.
- Quoting AdvoKid’s attorney from oral argument: “I would cite the court to minor’s brief at page 42, where minor argues that child’s wishes were relevant here, but doesn’t tell us what those wishes are. And in fact argues, they should be disregarded. I’d also cite the court to minor’s response brief to our brief at page 13, where minor’s counsel writes this: “The strength of the bond should have been judged as it existed in 2013 and not as it existed in 2015/2016. Not only is that contrary to this court’s decision in 2014, which held just the opposite, but that is not an argument for Lexi’s best interest. Of course the strength of her bond over 3 years has to be considered in a best interest analysis.”
- “In fact, the court appointed attorneys for the child and the Depart of Children and Family services have argued consistent with the tribe’s arguments, that the child’s individual best interests may not be considered.” (http://legaltalknetwork.com/podcasts/lawyer-2-lawyer/)
- It wasn’t until March of 2016 that the Pages were officially ordered to give up custody of Lexi. Up until then, no order was in active effect to move her (all dependency orders were stayed immediately). To the contrary, there was a standing DO NOT REMOVE order issued by the first dependency judge:
- The first dependency order was immediately stayed (as if it didn’t happen) during the appeal. The Court of Appeals reversed the order specifically saying that “it is reasonably probable that the court’s decision would have been different had it applied the correct good cause standard….considering Lexi’s best interests, including the strength & longevity of her bond to the Pages and the trauma she may suffer if that bond is broken.” That sounds like the dependency court AND the Court of Appeals agreed with the Pages fighting for Lexi to stay.
- The second dependency judge wasted a lot of time. That is why the Court of Appeals, the second time said: “In its written decision, the court described the burden on the de facto parents in language that is identical, word-for-word, to the language we disapproved as an incorrect statement of law in the prior appeal.” (http://www.courts.ca.gov/opinions/nonpub/B268111.PDF) It was such a bad order that during the recent oral arguments, the appeals judge said that their ruling in that appeal set a record for the fastest ever ruling in California, it was that clear!
- Scientific research and established case law overwhelmingly support that continuity in care is paramount to a child’s best interest- http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/106/5/1145.long
- “Paramount in the lives of these children is their need for continuity with their primary attachment figures and a sense of permanence that is enhanced when placement is stable”
- “The emotional consequences of multiple placements or disruptions are likely to be harmful at any age”
- “Any intervention that separates a child from the primary caregiver who provides psychological support should be cautiously considered and treated as a matter of urgency and profound importance.”
- “The child, rather than running away (the “flight” response), may learn to become psychologically disengaged, leading to detachment, apathy, and excessive daydreaming”
- “Impersonal placement settings do not effectively support young children who have been abused and neglected. Bureaucratic proceedings, including conferring legal status, are usually of little or no consequence to children, whose needs are much more fundamental. Generally, assignment of custody should reinforce a child’s perception of belonging and should not disrupt established psychological ties except when safety or emotional well-being are in jeopardy.”
- “Children need continuity, consistency, and predictability from their caregiver. Multiple placements are injurious.”
- At the most recent hearing, the Court of Appeals was struggling with the question of how much damage does the move have to do before the child will be permitted to stay. Let that question sink in: How badly must a child be hurt before the government will not move her again? That is what the parties are arguing here – and that is what is being argued in all these cases.
- Goldstein et al., Beyond the Best Interests of the Child (The Free Press 1979)
- “Continuity of relationships, surroundings, and environment influence are essential for a child’s normal development. Since they do not play the same role in later life, their importance is often underrated by the adult world.”
- “For school age children, the breaks in their relationships with their psychological parents affect above all those cognitive and social achievements that are based significantly on their identifications with the parents’ demands, prohibitions, and social ideals…Multiple placements at these ages put many children at an educational and social disadvantage. This in turn may cause behavior that schools and the community at large experience as disorganized and disruptive.”
- Goldsmith et al.,Separation and Reunification: Using Attachment Theory and Research to Inform Decisions Affecting the Placements of Children in Foster Care (Spring 2004), 55 Juvenile and Family Court Journal 2, p. 7-8.
- “The concept of resilience is often misunderstood to mean that a ‘resilient’ child is capable of developing secure relationships despite adverse environmental factors such as separations, abrupt moves, and losses. . . . Recent developmental research suggests a different view of resilience, however. Rather than characterizing resilience as an inherent trait within a given child, resilience is viewed as a process whereby, through interactions between the child and her environment, a child develops a capacity to successfully adapt to adversity (Egeland, Carlson, & Sroufe, 1993)… Thus, resilience is not a fixed quality ‘in’ the child but a process that characterizes the child’s interactions with the environment in which protective factors outweigh risk factors. Perhaps the most significant protective factor during the early years is a secure attachment to a stable, sensitive, and supportive caregiver (Weinfield et al., 1999)…Because resilience is not a fixed trait but a product of the child’s interaction with the environment, it can change for the worse if the interactions between the child and the environment deteriorate. Second, resilience is the product of the balance between risk and protective factors. If the balance tilts toward risk factors, either because they increase or because protective factors decrease, the child may lose his or her resilience… Thus, rather than believing that children who have experienced multiple moves with seemingly minimal adverse emotional consequences are resilient and somehow immune, it should be evident that disrupted caregiving may place children at risk for further trauma and consequently decrease the child’s capacity for resilience.”
- In re Brittany K. (2005) 127 Cal.App.4th 1497, 1505
- “[I]n any custody determination, a primary consideration in determining the child’s best interests is the goal of assuring stability and continuity…When custody continues over a significant period, the child’s need for continuity and stability assumes an increasingly important role. That need will often dictate the conclusion that maintenance of the current arrangement would be in the best interests of that child.”
- In re Joseph T. (2008) 163 Cal.App.4th 787, 800
- “The passage of time is a significant factor in a child’s life; the longer a successful placement continues, the more important the child’s need for continuity and stability becomes in the evaluation of her best interests.”
Wouldn’t it have been easier and/or better if they had just let her leave when they were supposed to? Why did they delay when they knew her family wanted her?
There have been many who have claimed that the Pages prevented Lexi from being quickly sent to live with family in Utah. (http://myemail.constantcontact.com/NICWA-Supports-Safe-Transition-in-California-ICWA-Case.html?soid=1102238947047&aid=07_RaZRiu6U )
