Native American Girl to be Reunified With Her Family in Utah;Foster Parents Try to Stop it UPDATED

“Six-year-old Lexi has only ever know Summer and Rusty Page as her parents. [Well, she was taken away from her biological mom when she was 2. And her name is Alexandria. ]

But any day now the Santa Clara, California, child could be legally ripped from her loving foster home despite Rusty and Page’s fight to keep her with them.

Lexi is one-and-a-half per cent Choctaw Native American.

Because of the ‘Indian Child Welfare Act’ – a federal law passed in the 1970’s aimed to protect the best interests of Native American children – she must live with Native American parents.”

Now, Summer and Rusty are fighting to keep the child they have tried for more than two years to adopt with them.

‘Lexi doesn’t know another home. She finally knows what mom and dad means and they want to take that away from her. and we can’t stand idly by while that happens,’ Rusty told Fox 11.

Summer and Rusty also have a nine-year-old, another six-year-old and a two-year-old. Lexi is the family’s only foster child.

‘This little girl, we are her home. This is her family and that can all be rocked tomorrow,’ Summer said.

The Page family took the case to court, but their most recent emergency stay was lifted.

Department of Children and Family Services agents were expected to take Lexi from her home at 10am on Sunday but postponed after a large group of protesters took a stand against her removal. 

 

The family is under ‘specific orders’ not to tell Lexi or their other children what is happening.

‘As a grandmother, it’s ripping my heart. It’s ripping me apart to see Lexi has been a part of our family for almost five years, and she’s not going to understand what’s going on.

‘The children are not going to understand the separation. This is going to destroy these children,’ Tari Kelly, Lexi’s foster grandmother, told ABC 7.

The Choctaw tribe has decided to place Lexi with extended non-blood relatives in Utah [not true,see below], who are not Native Americans and will not be living on the reservation.

In a statement, the tribe said it wants what is best for the child.

‘The Choctaw Nation desires the best for this Choctaw child.

‘The tribe’s values of faith, family and culture are what makes our tribal identity so important to us.

‘Therefore we will continue to work to maintain these values and work toward the long-term best interest of this child,’ it said.

The Pages said they have not been told when Child and Family Services will be arriving to take Lexi, but believe the agents want to do the removal away from the eyes of the media and the community, according to ABC 7.

‘As hard as it is, and as scary as it is to go up against the people we going up against, we’re putting everything on the line.

‘A mom is not going to sit back, a dad is not going to sit back. We’re going to fight until the very end,’ Summer said. “

Girl, six, to be LEGALLY torn away from her loving foster parents of five years because she is ‘1.5 per cent Native American’ and the family is white
 [Daily Mail 3/21/16 by Kalhan Rosenblatt]

***

Standing Our Ground For Children states on Facebook,”Twisting the truth— the media keeps reporting that Alexandria is going to non-native kinship with no blood ties. She is going to kinship placement that has HER siblings.”

***

From NICWA:”March 21, 2016

NICWA Calls for Informed Response to California ICWA Case

We are disturbed by this weekend’s flurry of negative media attention regarding the attempted reunification of a child with her family in Utah. In this contentious custody case, there have never been any surprises as far as what the law required. The foster family was well aware years ago this girl is an Indian child, whose case is subject to the requirements of the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA)(1), and who has relatives who were willing to raise her if reunification with her father was unsuccessful(2).

In fact, the only surprising turn of events is the lengths the foster family has gone to, under the advice of an attorney with a long history of trying to overturn ICWA, to drag out litigation as long as possible, creating instability for the child in question. That the foster family now argues bonding and attachment should supersede all else despite testimony of those closest to her case(3), seems like a long-term, calculated legal strategy based on the simple fact that the law was always clear(4), they understood it(5), but just chose not to abide by it(6).

The purpose of foster care is to provide temporary care for children while families get services and support to reunite with their children, not to fast-track the creation of new families when there is extended family available who want to care for the child. The temporary nature of these relationships is also the reason we view those who serve as foster parents as selfless and nurturing individuals. Reunification and placement with extended family whenever possible is best practice for all children(7), not just Native American.

We call on the media to provide balanced reporting and to ask vital questions regarding these facts before inflaming the public and subjecting the privacy and future well-being of a little girl to national debate.

References
1. “On August 30, 2011, the court found that the ICWA applies and the matter was transferred to a specialized department for the ICWA cases…” (Cited here, p. 9.)
2. “At some point after father’s reunification efforts failed, the [foster family] decided they wanted to adopt A. They discussed the issue with the Department social worker, who advised them that the tribe had selected the [relative family] as the planned adoptive placement.” (Cited here, p. 7.)
3. “A’s ability to re-attach to a new caretaker is stronger because of the stability that the [foster family] has provided for her.” (Cited here, p. 6) and “Javier did not believe A would suffer any severe trauma because she sees the [relative family] as family and would not feel as if she is being sent to live with strangers.” (Cited here, p. 11.)
4. “The Department consistently reminded the [foster family] that A is an Indian child subject to the ICWA placement preferences.” (Cited here, p. 7.)
5. “The [foster family was] aware that A was an Indian child and her placement was subject to the ICWA.” (Cited here, p. 5.)
6. “The [relative family] first visited A shortly after the court terminated father’s reunification services. Since then, they video chat with A about twice a week and have had multiple in-person visits in Los Angeles. The [foster family] refer[s] to the [relative family] as family from Utah…The participants agreed on a transition plan that involved a relatively short transition, with both families meeting for breakfast or at a park, explaining to A that she is going to with the [relative family], who are family who love A very much and will take good care of her. The [foster family] would reassure A that they love her and will always be a part of her family.” (Cited here, p. 8.)
7. “The benefits of extended family placements are not limited to biological relatives, but extend to placements within a child’s larger community. Child welfare agencies consider “members of [a child’s] tribes or clans, godparents, stepparents, or other adults who have a kinship bond with the child” as potential resources for kinship care.””

REFORM Puzzle Piece

 Let’s get some honesty about what is happening here. The foster parents have been fighting for 3 years to NOT get her placed with her family that has her siblings.

Update: “Amid crying and chanting, county social workers Monday collected a 6-year-old foster child from the Saugus parents desperately fighting to keep her, acting on a court order that concluded the girl’s native American blood requires her placement with relatives in Utah.

Three Department of Children and Family Services officials waited on the Santa Clarita Valley family’s doorstep for 10 minutes until foster father Rusty Page opened the front door and, holding a crying Lexi in his arms, made his way through a gauntlet of reporters as the child clutched teddy bear.

As the foster father arrived at the county workers’ car door, foster mother Summer Page emerged screaming from the house, the couple’s three children in tears with her.

A couple of supporters shouted at county workers, “How do you live with yourself?” and several repeatedly yelled toward the child, “The Page family loves you.”

The girl scooped up by county officials had been sheltered from a growing two-day protest outside her home on Ron Ridge Drive, kept inside with her foster parents, Rusty and Summer Page, out of the glare of television cameras and other media attention.

The Pages had fought efforts under the federal Indian Child Welfare Act to place Lexi with relatives of her father, who is a Native American. The Pages argued that Lexi had lived with them since the age of 2 and knew no other life. They also say she is just 1.5 percent Choctaw Indian.

However, a court found that the Page family “had not proven by clear and convincing evidence that it was a certainty the child would suffer emotional harm by the transfer.”

The Pages have three children and want to adopt Lexi. The family is appealing and will go to the California Supreme Court if necessary, said their attorney, Lori Alvino McGill.

Lexi was 17 months old when she was removed from her birth parents’ custody. Her mother had substance abuse problems, and her father had an extensive criminal history, according to court records.

She will live with a Utah couple who are not Native Americans but are related by marriage to her father. The girl’s sister is living with the couple, and another sister will be living down the street, said Leslie Heimov of the Children’s Law Center of California, Lexi’s court-appointed legal representatives.

In a statement, the National Indian Child Welfare Association said the Pages were aware for years that the girl was an American Indian but chose to “drag out litigation as long as possible, creating instability for the child.”

Friends, relatives, church members and neighbors gathered early Sunday morning near the Page family home to protest the anticipated removal of the girl from her foster family by county officials.

Protesters who camped out overnight Sunday on the Saugus street, rallying to keep the 6-year-old girl united with her foster family, were replaced Monday morning with a fresh group as they dug in for an around-the-clock vigil.

The group prayed together every hour for a last-minute resolution to the situation.

Marie Wiles, mother of a home-schooled child, stayed with the protest until 10 p.m. Sunday and re-joined the group Monday morning.

“The neighborhood has come together and is supportive,” Wiles said. “They bring us water, blankets. They let us use their bathrooms.

“This is a great life lesson for my daughter,” she said, referring to 9-year-old Annalise, who stood by her mother at the protest.

By the time social workers arrived about 2:30 p.m. Monday, more than a hundred supporters were standing by, many waving signs of support reading “#keep Lexi home” or “Save Lexi.”

They were joined by television news vans that converged on the neighborhood.

As the county officials drove away with Lexi, crying friends hugged each other, some crumpled onto the middle of the roadway, and many gathered one last time to pray together.”

UPDATE: County takes 6-year-old from Saugus foster family [Signal CV 3/21/16 by Jim Holt and AP]

Update 2:“On Monday, March 21, pandemonium broke out in Santa Clarita, California, at the home of foster couple Summer and Russell Page as social workers from the Department of Children and Family Services arrived to pick up a 6-year-old girl who was being held by the couple in defiance of a court ordering her returned to relatives after a five-year custody battle. At 2:45 p.m. PST, the sobbing girl was carried to a vehicle and whisked away as dozens of media outlets and protesters looked on, bringing an end to a stand-off over the child’s custody that had made headlines around the world.

The girl, who goes by the name “Lexi,” was ordered to be placed with relatives, including her biological sister, in Utah in compliance with the Indian Child Welfare Act. Her identity was released to the media by the Pages over the weekend, including a Facebook page titled “Save Lexi,” in which they sought public support in defiance of the court’s order, according to legal experts in California.

On Sunday, the Pages, who authorities say were told repeatedly from the beginning that the child was “never up for adoption,” were supposed to facilitate a peaceful transfer at 10 a.m., but efforts to retrieve the child were blocked by protesters who had surrounded the couple’s house to prevent her removal. Officials did not want the transfer to become a dangerous situation and left without the child, according to those familiar with the case.

Yesterday morning, however, officials from DCFS released a statement that the agency intended to carry out the court’s order and asked the media “to respect the child’s privacy.” Behind the scenes, authorities were in contact with the foster parents to inform them to prepare Lexi for transfer today or face criminal charges.

The girl has been at the center of a custody battle between the couple, her biological father and the Choctaw Nation of Oklahoma, for nearly five years. She is the second child that the Pages have attempted to adopt out of foster care, according to court documents. The first child was also returned to its extended family after a custody battle with the Pages.

Indeed, according to both court documents and those familiar with the case, Lexi has had an ongoing relationship with her relatives in Utah for nearly her whole life. The couple, who are non-Indian relatives of Lexi’s biological father, fall within the familial placement preferences under ICWA. They have visited the girl at their own expense every month and regularly Skype with the girl at least once a week. Additionally, she has visited them in Utah, as well, and―significantly, she considers them family, according to insiders.

“These are not strangers that she’s never seen before or had any kind of relationship with,” said a source close to the father’s family who declined to be identified because of the sensitivity of the issues involved. “Her sister also lives with [the Utah couple] and she has another sister who lives down the street from them. She has a very close relationship with the Utah relatives, and the Pages have been a big part of facilitating that over the years, so it’s baffling that they would create this kind of drama and friction between the two families at the last minute when they have thus far had a very amicable relationship that was in Lexi’s best interest. They knew good and well that the transfer was coming―this was not a surprise visit from DCFS, so all this drama was completely for show.”

Attempts to reach the Pages or their legal team by ICTMN were unsuccessful, however, their attorney, Lori Alvino McGill―who also represented Baby Veronica’s birth mother, Christy Maldonado inAdoptive Couple v. Baby Girlin 2013―told local media that she will be filing an appeal with the California Supreme Court forthwith for the girl’s return and that another trip to the United States Supreme Court may be in the works “if that becomes necessary.”

 

A Little Perspective

The case began in 2010 when the child’s father lost custody of his daughter after he went to jail for selling stolen auto parts, according to court documents. The girl went through several foster homes before being placed with the Pages, who have been attempting to retain her ever since, in spite of being reminded numerous times by the state and the courts that she would eventually either be reunified with her father or be sent to live with relatives.

 

The girl’s father was released from jail in December 2011, after which the girl remained with the Pages while he worked to complete a “reunification plan,” which included unmonitored day visits over weekends.

At some point, however, communication between the Pages and father broke down after it became clear that they were targeting his daughter for adoption and interfering with his visitations, he told ICTMN at the time. According to court documents, the father was a “model parent” who had over time become depressed and worn down by fighting with the Pages and what he considered lengthy, unnecessary reunification requirements that he felt were not getting him any closer to regaining custody of his daughter.

In December 2013, he reluctantly ceased reunification and requested that she be placed with relatives according to placement preferences under ICWA. In 2014, however, the Pages went to court to establish “de facto parent” status―giving them the same rights and standing as biological parents―which was unanimously rejected by a California appeals court.

 

“The foster family was well awareyears agothis girl is an Indian child, whose case is subject to the requirements of the Indian Child Welfare Act and who has relatives who were willing to raise her if reunification with her father was unsuccessful,” the National Indian Child Welfare Association said in a statement. “The purpose of foster care is to providetemporarycare for children while families get services and support to reunite with their children, not to fast-track the creation of new families when there is extended family available who want to care for the child. The temporary nature of these relationships is also the reason we view those who serve as foster parents as selfless and nurturing individuals. Reunification and placement with extended family whenever possible is best practice forallchildren, not just Native American.”

Moving Forward Under the New Normal

According to officials with the California DCFS, peaceable transitions for the child are the primary objectives when replacing them to another home. Alerting the media, refusing to relinquish the child and releasing her name to the press is in violation of not only the court order, but also a violation of confidentiality that is enumerated under state statute.

“We like all of our transitions and replacements to go smoothly,” said Armand Montiel, public affairs officer for DCFS. “We don’t like drama for the child.”

Montiel said the actions by the Pages over the weekend could trigger sanctions not only by the court, but also by the foster agency in making a determination about whether they should remain a foster family.

Leslie Heimov is the executive director of the Children’s Law Center of California, which represents 33,000 children in Los Angeles and Sacramento, with over 275 lawyers, paralegals, investigators and social workers. They also represent Lexi’s interests in this case. Heimov said the main priority at present is to ensure her safety and well-being during the transition period, in spite of the media chaos surrounding her retrieval yesterday.

“The privacy issues in dependency court proceedings are confidential under state statute, so we try to follow the law and we have not yet decided whether we’ll pursue legal action against the Pages for violating confidentiality,” Heimov told ICTMN this morning. “At the moment we are more concerned about our client and the best way to get her placed with relatives and her emotional and physical well-being. That said, even setting ICWA aside, this child has a family and sibling that she should be placed with, which is also the preference under California state law. We are very cognizant of the privacy issues, but we feel that the information that is being reported in the public arena about this case should be accurate.””

 

Breaking: California Returns Child to Family in ICWA Case
[Indian Country Today Media Network 3/22/16 by Suzette Brewer]

Update 3: This gives some history to why the father wanted her placed with the Utah family.

“Baby A has been adrift in foster care for years. Born in November 2009, the child’s non-Indian mother had disappeared soon after its birth. The father, a member of the Choctaw Nation of Oklahoma who is from the Los Angeles area, took over raising the child and was described by friends and family as, says one, “a great father, who really tried his best to step up.”

Currently, an appellate court in Los Angeles is reviewing whether or not Baby A should be placed with relatives under the “preferred placement preferences” of both state and federal Indian Child Welfare statutes, or remain with a foster couple who are claiming “de facto parent” status, with the same rights as biological parents. The foster couple, Summer and Russell Page, are the child’s third foster home since it was placed into state custody.

According to friends, family and court watchers with knowledge of the case, all of whom declined to be identified because of the privacy rights of a minor child, although Baby A’s father was “rough around the edges,” he was a loving—even doting—parent. A mechanic for many years, he was arrested and sentenced to jail in 2010 for grand theft auto and selling stolen auto parts when the child was approximately a year old. Since he was a single father with no other family in the area (his Choctaw mother had recently passed away), Baby A was swept into the oceanic California foster care system.

“He was not fumbling or unsure of himself,” says a friend of the family who declined to be identified because of fear of retaliation  by the state. “It was clear that he was experienced with babies and children and knew how to change a diaper and even used a particular kind of diaper because he explained that his baby had sensitive skin and was prone to diaper rash. Some guy uninterested in being a father wouldn’t even bother with that. He was a good parent in spite of his [jail sentence].”

After the father was released from jail on December 31, 2011, his child remained in foster care while he worked to complete a “case plan”—which is a series of checklists, forms and services mandated by the court, including parenting classes, drug testing and counseling. At one point, he even had unmonitored day visits over weekends.

And yet he never regained custody of Baby A. Eighteen months and three foster homes later, the process began to sputter as he kept getting his hopes up, only to get more additions to his case plan. Even though he had cleaned up his act, gotten a job, completed parenting classes and a multitude of other mandated programs, the father began to bristle at the seemingly endless demands placed on him by the Department of Social Services. Friends say he fell into despair, and said he considered the court keeping his child away from him as a punishment that did not fit his crime. As a non-violent offender he felt he had already paid his penance, including jail time and lengthy reunification efforts with his child.

But there were other obstacles. Some of the court-ordered classes, for example, were offered only during his work day, and he could not take off because he had just gotten hired. He did not like the court-ordered therapist he was sent to, but was not given the opportunity to find another one. He went for his regularly scheduled drug testing, but missed an appointment, which was marked as a “positive” test under California law. Nonetheless, Baby A’s father felt he was doing the best he could, according to friends.

Subsequently, sources close to the father say that he became “tired and fed up” with the endless checklists and requirements. In the meantime, bickering with the latest round of foster parents erupted after the couple had “fallen in love with Baby A” and set their sights on getting permanent custody of the child. According to people familiar with the case, the Pages began to dictate the terms and length of father’s visits and began documenting a list of complaints, including that Baby A “smelled like cigarettes” when the child returned from visits with its father; that he “seemed intimidating,” among others.

Depressed and frustrated, he told friends and family in the summer of 2013 that he was “tired” of fighting with the Pages and what he called DSS’s “stalling.” So, in order to maintain some kind of relationship with his child, the father of Baby A requested that it be placed with his relatives in Utah under the “preferred placement” provision of the Indian Child Welfare Act. With the consultation and consent of the Choctaw Nation, which has 175,000 members and is the third largest tribe in the U.S., an ICWA-compliant home was found with extended relatives in Utah.

In December 2013, however, a Los Angeles judge issued a stay denying Baby A’s placement with its ICWA-compliant relatives in Utah pending further appeal, citing the foster parents’ contention that they were now the child’s “de facto” parents and that they had become “attached” to the child.

According to family friends, Baby A’s father and extended family were devastated by the decision. Legal experts contend the stay ignored five key facts in the case: 1) That he is the biological Indian parent of Baby A; 2) his parental rights have not been terminated; 3) that he still has standing in the case; 4) that he therefore has a say in determining where his child should be placed;  and 5) that the Choctaw Nation of Oklahoma, who also has standing in this case, supports father’s placement wishes.

But the concrete wall for the non-Indian foster parents and their legal team, however, is the federal- and state-mandated placement preferences under Section 1915(A) of the Indian Child Welfare Act, whose specific requirements are as follows: “1. A member of the child’s extended family; 2. A member of the child’s Indian tribe; 3. Other Indian families; or 4. an institution for children approved by an Indian tribe or operated by an Indian organization which has a program suitable to meet the Indian child’s needs.” Additionally, the act specifies that if an Indian child is to be placed into adoptive or foster care that “the Indian child’s tribe shall establish a different order of preference by resolution, the agency or court effecting the placement shall follow such order so long as the placement is the least restrictive setting appropriate to the particular needs of the child.”

In January 2014, Lori Alvino McGill signed on as counsel for the Pages. Alvino McGill worked onAdoptive Couple v. Baby Girl last year as a spokesperson for Veronica’s mother, Christy Maldonado, who had given Veronica up for adoption to Matt and Melanie Capobianco of South Carolina before the girl’s birth in 2009. As Maldonado’s pro bono counsel, Alvino McGill argued in the media and on social websites against Veronica’s father Dusten Brown, using foul language and, in one particularly heated late-night exchange on Facebook, referred to Veronica’s biological father as a “sperm donor.”

 

Alvino McGill is collaborating on this case with  Stephanie Grace, a Harvard-educated attorney with Los Angeles-based Latham & Watkins, who, as a third-year law student, came under fire in 2010 for an email in which she asserted the following: “Everyone wants to take 100 white infants and 100 African American infants and raise them in Disney utopia and prove once and for all that we are all equal on every dimension, or at least the really important ones like intelligence. I am merely not 100 percent convinced that this is the case.” The email was subsequently forwarded to the Harvard Black Law Student Association.

Alvino McGill and Grace, along with four other attorneys, are seeking to overturn ICWA in federal court on the basis that it is “unconstitutional” for its race-based placement preferences. The team is also seeking to terminate Baby A’s father’s parental rights, arguing that the Pages should retain custody of the child.

Baby A, however, is not the first child this foster couple has tried to adopt out of foster care. The first child was eventually reunited with its parents—but only after they fought in court with the Pages to regain custody.

“These folks are attempting to use foster care as an ad hoc adoption agency, [but it] is not a rubber-stamp to adopt the kids in their care.” says J. Eric Reed, member of the Choctaw Nation of Oklahoma and a former Special Assistant U.S. Attorney who specializes in federal Indian law. “They knew when they signed up for duty that foster care is only temporary custody. They are meant only to care for the child until the child is reunified with the biological parent. But now they’re trying to switch horses in the middle of the race again and gain permanent custody with the help of Baby Veronica’s legal team. But let’s be clear: Dad’s parental rights have not been terminated. Therefore, under the law, his rights are still in play. They cannot go into court and pretend otherwise. To do so is not only a direct violation of ICWA, but California State ICWA statutes, as well.”

Reed, who is now a Dallas-based criminal defense attorney in private practice, says that states across the country “consistently mandate complicated, near impossible goals” in their so-called reunification plans for Indian parents that create a more favorable climate for the adoption of these children by foster parents.

Jumping Through Hoops, Hoops and More Hoops

Across the United States, Native parents have complained that they face seemingly never-ending rounds of requirements and checklists that thwart their attempts to regain custody of their children after they disappear into state custody.

The problem has become so widespread that the Bureau of Indian Affairs commenced hearings at an ICWA Summit in Rapid City, South Dakota, last year in which dozens of Indian parents testified before a panel of approximately two dozen government officials, including Assistant Interior Secretary Kevin Washburn, that their parental and human rights were routinely violated by the South Dakota Department of Social Services, which forced them to “jump through hoop after hoop” which did not result in being reunified with their children.

Since those hearings in Rapid City last year, Secretary Washburn, who is a member of the Chickasaw Nation of Oklahoma, has never publicly commented on the case, which is under current review by the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals. Additionally, he has declined numerous requests from Indian Country Today Media Network to speak on the record regarding the nationwide issues with the Indian Child Welfare Act and the friction it creates between the tribes and the states under his purview.

At the Rapid City summit, Indian parents complained that each completed checklist was met only with yet another checklist and more court-ordered programs and classes, while non-Indian foster parents and facilities across the state were being paid to care for over 750 Indian children who were swept into foster care every year. Additionally, many Indian grandparents, great-grandparents, aunts, uncles, et al, testified that even though they had become certified as foster homes, they were denied the opportunity by the Department of Social Services to care for their own relatives, in direct violation of the Indian Child Welfare Act.

In response, the Oglala and Rosebud Sioux tribes and three Indian parents in South Dakota filed a class action suit in March 2013 against the state in federal court [Oglala v. Van Hunnik]. For the first time in U.S. History, the two tribes have sued the state under the doctrine of parens patriae—which means on behalf of all current and future tribal members. Currently, the legal team for the plaintiffs are awaiting a judge’s opinion in their suit, which asks for immediate declaratory and injunctive relief from the daily practices, procedures and routines in family courts that ignore ICWA.

The plaintiffs charge that for years, Native children have been taken on virtually a daily basis by social services and placed into state custody by judges and social workers who completely ignored the provisions of both the Indian Child Welfare Act and even South Dakota state law, according to the suit.

 

“[The social worker] said I couldn’t see my kids because I didn’t fill out a form properly,” according to one parent in South Dakota who declined to be identified because of her fear of retaliation by the social service workers in that state. “I said I had filled it out three times already, how many more did she need? So she wrote down in her report that, ‘Mother appears hostile.’ Well, what did she expect? A cupcake? I want to see my kids. I’m done with the forms. Let me see my kids!”

“It’s a classic legal strategy,” says Alicia Nevaquaya, an Eagletown, Oklahoma-based lawyer and member of the Choctaw Nation of Oklahoma. “It’s known as ‘Drown them in paperwork to the point where you break them.’ And it’s understandable that these parents are frustrated, because it is, in fact, a ‘hostile takeover’ of your kids. They’re actively taking them away. But the facts in [Baby A] are clear that this Native father was broken. They broke him into giving up.”

“I can’t do it anymore,” he tearfully told a friend in the summer of 2013, around the same time that the Supreme Court handed down its ruling onAdoptive Couple v. Baby Girl. For 18 long months since his release from jail, dad had fought to regain custody and was only given more to do, which only gave the Pages more time to establish their “de facto” parent status. After losing his mother, being left with an infant to raise on his own, the arrest, the jail time, the separation from his child and his quest to regain custody had taken its toll. He reluctantly ceased reunification efforts, which were officially terminated in June 2013. But—his parental rights and standing in this case, however, remain in tact.

His only request was that his child be at least be placed with ICWA-compliant relatives in Utah so that they could maintain some kind of relationship. In early December 2013, Superior Court Judge Amy Pellman ordered a change of custody ruling that under the law, the child should be placed with the father’s ICWA-compliant relatives in Utah.

On December 12, 2013, the Pages filed a motion with the court to stay the child’s removal to relatives to Utah, which was immediately granted. From that point forward, attorneys for the foster couple began referring to them as the “de facto” parents of Baby A and that they therefore had the same rights as the child’s biological parents.

In spite of the legal wranglings by the foster couple and their new legal team, two obstinate facts remain: Father’s rights in this case have not been terminated; he still has standing under state and federal law.

Says Reed, “So what if Dad was in jail? Does that entitle the state to take his child away forever? No it does not. Prison inmates have more parental rights than Indian parents. Unless there was clear and present danger to this child or evidence of abuse—and I do not see that there was—then they should have returned the kid to him by now. But they’ve stacked the deck against him, just like they did with Dusten Brown.

“Even in prison, inmates still get access to their children and they still get visitation, because maintaining the relationship with the children is a central part of the rehabilitation process of the criminal justice system in the United States. They have parenting classes for both men and women in prison. So, whether the legal team wants to confront reality or not, Dad [still has rights] under state and federal law and I think they’re putting the cart ahead of the horse. They have yet to initiate a termination of parental rights hearing, so that has to happen first. That’s the law. Now the question arises: What active efforts has the state made to help him in this unique situation to reunify with this child? What could [DSS] have done to promote and protect his parental rights with this Indian child? Very little, it would appear.”

The Ugly Legacy of Termination and Relocation

How Baby A’s dad wound up in California is also significant in the history of Indian people in the United States. His Choctaw mother’s family was “relocated” to the Los Angeles area after the Indian Relocation Act (Public Law 959, 1956), in which Indian families were “invited” to move from their homelands and reservations to urban areas in a program designed to “integrate and assimilate” Indian people into mainstream culture. It was part of the termination policies of that era, in which tribal rolls were closed and their assets liquidated. Relocation is considered a failure by many Native historians and tribal members, not only because of its further destruction of tribes, but also its creation of the disconnect and widespread diaspora of Indian people across the U.S. that exists to this day.

As a direct result of these policies, Los Angeles has the second largest urban Indian population in the United States after New York City. According to the U.S. Census, most of the tribal members in the greater Los Angeles area are from out-of-state tribal communities.

Baby A’s father fell into the familiar traps that have plagued urban Indians since Relocation began. Isolated and depressed, he was already under stress with the departure of the child’s mother, caring for a newborn and dealing with the grief of his mother’s passing. Then came his arrest, his time in jail,  the removal of his child and the subsequent Kafkaesque process of trying to regain custody. “He tried his very best, he did,” says a friend of dad’s family. “But it wasn’t good enough. He was broken and it seems like that’s what the intention was. To break him into giving up.”

All parties in the case have declined comment becauseCFS v. J.E.involves a child. Nonetheless, last Tuesday, a number of courtwatchers, lawyers (who do not represent any of the parties) and ICWA experts attended the appellate hearing with the encouragement of the California Indian Legal Services, who had posted a notice of the hearing on their website.

In her argument before the three-judge appellate panel, Alvino McGill argued yet again that ICWA’s preferred placement preferences are “unconstitutional,” citing an old case involving Hawaiian Crown lands, which baffled many onlookers in the courtroom. Additionally, Alvino McGill argued that the lower court’s ruling that “no good cause” existed to allow the child to remain with the foster couple was “erroneous,” in spite of the fact that the child has ICWA-compliant relatives who are willing to take the child into their home.

“The case she brought before the panel actually works in ICWA’s favor, because the Supreme Court ultimately ruled [in the Hawaiian Crown lands case] that tribes have a unique, political relationship with the U.S. Government that the Native Hawaiians do not have,” says a lawyer who attended the hearing. “[Baby A’s father] is a tribal member of the Choctaw Nation of Oklahoma, which has a long-established political relationship with the U.S. Government and the courts have consistently upheld that relationship in numerous decisions, which is what the Indian Child Welfare Act was intended to support: The continued existence of the tribes. So she is therefore incorrect in her interpretation of both [the Native Hawaiian] case and in her interpretation of the constitutionality of ICWA.”

In the meantime, as the case of Children and Family Services v. J.E. et al., unfolds, Summer and Russell Page are seeking to exchange their status as foster parents to adopting a Choctaw child who has living relatives available and which would allow dad to maintain contact.

The California Second District Court of Appeals, under presiding Justice Paul Turner, is expected to render its decision within the next several months.”

 

Broken: Choctaw Father in California Thwarted in Custody Battle With Foster Couple
 [Indian Country Today Media Network 7/24/14 by Suzette Brewer]

Update 4:”I have been doing some studying on a case that I plan to write on in the future. Having to get documents under the open records act. Sometimes things take time to put together, and the case will be difficult to write about… but until I can get all those ends cleared up, I need to write about a case a lot of people are talking about…

Today I was stopped and asked about the “Baby A” case. This is the California case of Rusty and Summer Page, a couple who fostered Baby A.

Let’s cut to the chase, Baby A is not a baby, so lets call her A. She is a six year old child.

This case is so complicated with manipulation of the press who in turn present a very slanted story so suckers will fall for it, hook line and sinker. Sensationalism sells papers, gets the views to the stations, reporters have thrown responsible reporting out the window all for the sake of a dollar. They do not care to report the truth, it is not as interesting … But I plan to dig into this subject…

1) Rusty and Summer Page knew before they took A as a foster child.
2) They knew this was a Indian child.
3) They knew the case was reunification with A’s family.

Before A was placed in the Page household, Rusty and Summer Page had a foster child, and when that foster was to be returned to the parents, Rusty and Summer Page tried to block that child from being returned to parents, they tried to force a adoption of a child who they had no rights to. They lost that case too.

Now they tried to unethically take A. They used to courts to keep her for three years. A’s father was supposed to be reunited with HIS daughter, but the Page’s prevented this reunion. He gave up and requested the courts give custody to a extended family.

A has visited her family, the family has traveled and visited with A. A has a sibling who is a member of the family she has gone to live with, other siblings and family who live nearby.

BUT enter one “Lori Alvino McGill” who is known for a late night rant, while drunk, on Facebook regarding Veronica Brown. McGill played a hand in forcing this child away from her biological father, and forcing her into a unwanted, and unethical adoption to Matt and Melanie Capobianco.

Why would McGill hate these children so much? I do not think she hates them, as much as she loves money. McGill works for the adoption industry, and makes her living off the backs of children’s misery.

McGill misleads the public into thinking that A was “ripped away from the only home she has ever known”. This is a lie, as much as it was a lie on other cases she has had her dirty fingers involved in.

Let’s look back at the Page family. Their first effort to take a child and force a adoption failed, so they tried again. The big difference this time is they want to attack the Indian Child Welfare Act, aka ICWA. On one of their pages they have “it is unfortunate A is Choctaw”…. What? “unfortunate”? But yet, on another they claim “Summer Page is of Indian ancestry as well, but she is not enrolled” WHAT? So this “religious” woman is going to lie in her attempt to try and take a child that she has no right to?

Summer Page is no more Indian than the wooden fence outside my door. They are desperate to take a child that is not theirs, and they think this will equal the playing field?

Now, a new claim has come forward from Summer Page:
What is hysterical about the claim Summer Page is eligible to enroll with the “Southern Band of Tuscaroa Tribe” is that this is not a real tribe. It is one of those faked groups who I write about. They are located in North Carolina, to which, North Carolina has ONE federally recognized tribe, that is the Eastern Band of Cherokee, they have the following state recognized tribes:

• Cohaire Intra-Tribal Council, Inc.
• Haliwa-Saponi Indian Tribe
• Lumbee Tribe
• Meherrin Nation
• Occaneechi Band of teh Saponi Nation [sic]
• Sappony
• Waccamaw-Siouan Tribe

Of those, I have no doubt that most are not true Native people.

Here is the bottom line regarding Summer Page’s sudden claim to being Indian… the Indian Child Welfare Act only covers federally recognized tribes.

Summer Page claiming she is Indian… I shake my head, that is like saying “Hey, I am not racist! I have a black friend”…

Lets look at what the Page family has done that is not legal.

1) They signed a legal document that states the cases of the foster children are confidential. But they have made public some of the details regarding this case.

2) The names of the children are confidential. The Page’s have put this child’s name all over the media and internet, including Facebook page and a webpage to use this child as a money making scam.

3) It is not legal to photograph or video record a child that is in foster care. We all know the Page’s have plastered this child’s photograph all over. They also arranged for the media to record this minor child for their news coverage on the case.

Who was there helping in these illegal activities? One Troy Dunn, who claims to “locate” lost family members and made a living from “reuniting” loved ones. Ironic..
Troy Dunn’s mother adopted a Indian child. She ran with this child so that ICWA could not take him away from her! This boy was Choctaw. Troy has stated this boy was at risk if he was left within his tribe… how did the Dunn family do in raising this “at risk” children?
It appears the “good Mormon” family was a failure, and perhaps Travis would have been better off if the Dunn’s had kept their racist hands off a Choctaw child.

You think about this, even if these kids were NOT Native children, what would the Page family use to blame a child be reunited with their family? The Page family is not the family of A, and so, the manipulation begins, the twist and turning of the story to make the Indian people look bad.. and then let them lie and claim to be Indian too, because we are waiting to hear what tribe Summer Page will say who her Indian family is. This will be researched out.

Think, even if A were NOT a Native child, this case would be no different. She has family who love her and want her, and they are not named Page. She has siblings, who look like her. This case from the very start was a child who was to be reunited with HER family. That family is not the Page’s.

The theft of children is not new, but the hate used towards Indian people comes from those who want to depress the Indian people, has a long history embedded into our lives. This child, A, is being made a target because of her percentage of Indian blood… it is used against her.

The next time someone says “How much Indian are you”? ask “How much American are you?””

She’s An Indian Too?? Summer Page [Ancestor Stealing Blog 03/25/16]

Update 5:”Today the California Supreme Court denied a petition to reconsider a state appellate court ruling in the case of a 6-year-old Choctaw Nation tribal member who was returned to her relatives last week after a five-year custody battle. On March 21, foster parents Summer and Russell Page ignited a worldwide firestorm of publicity when they initially refused to turn Lexi over to her biological relatives because of their objections to the Indian Child Welfare Act, a federal law enacted in 1978 to prevent the dissolution of tribal families and communities across the country.

See the court docket here.

With dozens of media outlets and protesters camped out at the couple’s home, officials with the county Department of Child and Family Services were concerned about the child’s safety and made the decision not to retrieve her that day and began attempting negotiations for a more peaceful transfer, according to those familiar with the case.

But after the couple indicated they would not be willing to facilitate the transfer in a more “neutral” location, on March 22, the Department of Child and Family Services issued a press release announcing its intention to follow the court order and told the Pages to prepare her for transfer.

That afternoon, chaos erupted at the Page’s home with shouting and screams of protest as officials from DCFS arrived to collect the child, who sobbed as she was carried to a waiting vehicle. As the vehicle pulled away, some of the protesters beat on the windows of the car with the child inside.

On March 25, Robert Flores and Lori Alvino McGill, who are attorneys for the Pages, filed petitions to have the case transferred from the appellate court to the California Supreme Court. The Pages attorneys requested a stay of the order returning Lexi to her relatives in Utah and filed a petition to reconsider the appellate court ruling, both of which were rejected by the California Supreme Court this afternoon, effectively setting the stage for another showdown with the United States Supreme Court on the constitutionality of the Indian Child Welfare Act only three years after Adoptive Couple v. Baby Girl.

The case began in 2010 when the child’s father lost custody of his daughter after he went to jail for selling stolen auto parts, according to court documents. The girl went through several foster homes before being placed with the Pages, who subsequently tried to adopt the girl out of foster care, in spite of repeated warnings that she was not up for adoption and that she had biological family in Utah who wanted to raise her.

In 2014, a California appeals court rejected the Pages’ appeal of an order to return the girl to her relatives in Utah, as well as their petition to be recognized as parents with the same rights and legal standing as biological parents. The Utah couple, who also have custody of Lexi’s biological half-sister, have had ongoing, lifelong contact with Lexi. According to court documents and the Choctaw Nation, the couple have visited her at their own expense every month and Skyped with her at least once a week. Additionally, Lexi has also visited them for extended stays at their home in Utah numerous times, contradicting the Pages contention that she “doesn’t know them.”

After the chaos surrounding Lexi’s transfer last week, authorities have placed a gag order on the Pages for violating the confidentiality laws surrounding minor children in state custody. Ignoring the gag order, however, the couple have continued to appear in media interviews to voice their objections to ICWA and appeal for donations and public support in their quest to adopt the child.

“By now, the Pages’ pattern of willfully violating court orders they don’t agree with should be cause for great alarm for anyone following this case,” The National Indian Child Welfare Association said in a statement on its Facebook page. “A gag order exists for one reason: to protect the child. This public relations campaign is not only ill-advised and irresponsible, it is harmful to the child.””

 

Breaking: California Supreme Court Denies Appeal in Lexi Case
 [Indian Country Today Media Network 3/30/16 by Suzette Brewer]

Update 5:“Rusty and Summer Page say they miss tucking their foster child into bed and giving her kisses months after the part-Native American girl was wrenched from their care.

On Friday, the couple continued their legal battle to return 6-year-old Lexi to California.

Lexi, who is 1/64th Choctaw, was taken from her foster home north of Los Angeles earlier this year and placed with distant relatives in Utah under a decades-old federal law designed to keep Native American families together.

An attorney for the Pages asked a state appeals court to reverse a lower court ruling that ordered the family to surrender the girl.

The lower court made “fundamental legal errors” and failed to take into account the girl’s bond with her foster parents and siblings, said attorney Lori Alvino McGill.

A representative for Lexi didn’t deny the close relationship, but argued it was the right decision to reconnect Lexi with her tribal roots.

“She’s doing well. She’s adjusting,” attorney Christopher Blake told a three-judge panel, which has up to 60 days to decide.

The appellate court also heard from a lawyer for Lexi’s biological father, who asked the judges to take his point of view into consideration. Two of the judges balked.

“His conduct is reprehensible,” said presiding Justice Paul Turner, adding that Lexi’s father made “bad choices” by not caring for her.

The mother of the Utah family that Lexi is living with declined to comment Friday, saying she’s bound by court orders not to discuss the case. The Associated Press isn’t naming the woman to protect the girl’s identity.

The case is one of dozens brought by foster families since the Indian Child Welfare Act was passed in the late 1970s. Lawmakers found that Native American families were broken up at disproportionately high rates, and that cultural ignorance and biases within the child welfare system were largely to blame.

Lexi was 17 months old when she was removed from the custody of her mother, who had drug-abuse problems. Her father has a criminal history, according to court records.

Although foster care is supposed to be temporary, the Pages want to adopt Lexi and for years have fought efforts under the federal act to place the girl with relatives of her father, who is part Choctaw.

The Pages have said the law is outdated and misapplied. Lower courts found the Pages had not proven Lexi would suffer emotional harm by the transfer and, in March, the California Supreme Court refused to intervene.

The Choctaw Nation has said the girl had long-time contact with her Utah relatives, who spoke to her online and frequently drove out to see her.

While some other tribes use a blood quantum to determine eligibility, the Choctaw Nation is among a handful of tribes that determines eligibility for membership by tracing a person’s lineage to a member of an original roll of tribal members.

Lexi is now living in Utah with relatives of her father who are not Native Americans.

Dozens of supporters turned out for the latest court hearing, waving banners that read: “Let Lexi Speak” and “Bring Lexi Home.”

The Pages said they have not heard from Lexi in nearly three months in what they described as “81 days of both torment and hope.”[Aw! Boo hoo! 

The family is hopeful the judges “will look at the facts and decide to bring Lexi home once and for all to her family, home to where she wants to be,” Rusty Page told reporters after the hearing.”

Foster Parents Continue Legal Fight for American Indian Girl[ABC news 6/4/16 by AP/Alicia Chang]

Update 6:“A 6-year-old girl with Native American heritage will remain with her relatives in Utah under a court ruling last week but the Santa Clarita foster parents who had to surrender her in the contentious custody battle are refusing to stand down.

In a unanimous decision, a California appellate court Friday upheld a lower court’s ruling in March that removed the girl, known as Lexi, from the home of Rusty and Summer Page — where she had lived for more than four years — and placed her with relatives in Utah, including a half-sister.

Lexi, whose biological father is an enrolled member of the Choctaw Nation tribe, is considered a Native American child under a decades-old federal law designed to keep Native American families together.

“We hope the appellate court’s ruling brings closure and finality to everyone involved, and Lexi is at last allowed to live a peaceful childhood in our home with her sister,” the Utah relatives, who have been trying to adopt the girl for about five years, said in a statement obtained through the Choctaw Nation of Oklahoma.

NO GOOD CAUSE FOUND

The appellate court upheld a Los Angeles Superior Court ruling that found the Pages did not prove, by clear and convincing evidence, that there was a significant risk of serious harm to place the girl with her Utah family. The appellate court found there was no “good cause” to stray from the placement preferences outlined in the federal Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA) — which are given first to a member of the child’s extended family, then to other members of the child’s tribe or thirdly to other Native American families.

This was the third time the 2nd District Court of Appeal had examined the case, which has drawn widespread media attention since L.A. County social workers whisked the girl away from the Pages’ Saugus home on March 21 as scores of supporters and protesters looked on.

A GoFundMe page created on behalf of the Page family has raised more than $55,000.

NEXT STOP: CA SUPREME COURT

Attorney Lori Alvino McGill, who is representing the Pages, called the appellate decision “a disappointment and a setback.”

McGill said she now plans to file a petition for review asking the California Supreme Court to resolve questions about the application of ICWA, which she said has long divided California courts.

“The next step is the one we’re most hopeful about; raising the larger Constitutional and statutory issues in the case with the California Supreme Court and the U.S. Supreme Court if necessary,” said McGill, whose firm Wilkinson Walsh + Eskovitz has represented the foster family pro bono.

The Pages had argued that Lexi would suffer trauma if the strong bond to the family forged over several years was broken but the appellate court argued that longevity of a child’s foster placement cannot be the only deciding factor.

That would not only circumvent policies favoring relatives but “incentivize families who knowingly accept temporary foster placement to delay an Indian child’s ultimate adoptive placement in the hope that as time passes, the family will reach a ‘safe zone’ where harm to a child from disrupting his or her primary attachment is presumed as a matter of law,” the court found.

HOPES FOR ADOPTION

At 17 months, Lexi — identified as 1.5 percent Choctaw and now an enrolled member of the tribe — was removed from the custody of her birth mother, who had substance abuse problems, and the birth father, who has a criminal history and lost custody of one other child, according to court documents. The tribe agreed to place the girl with a foster family “to facilitate efforts to reunite the girl with her father” who was in California, and at the age of 2, she was placed with the Page family, where “she bonded” and “thrived,” according to the documents.

After efforts to reunify the girl with her birth father failed, the father, the tribe and the L.A. County Department of Children and Family Services recommended the girl be placed with a non-Indian couple in Utah related to the father by marriage. The lower court ordered the girl be placed with her Utah relatives after finding the Pages, who had also tried to adopt Lexi, had not proven the child would suffer emotional harm by the transfer, according to court documents.

The Utah relatives, identified in court documents only as Ken R. and Ginger R., said the girl has been a real part of their family since the moment the girl’s grandmother — their aunt — expressed a desire that they bring Lexi into their home. They had been determined to have her in their home and adopt her, they said, since Lexi was placed in her first foster home at the age of 17 months old as they waited “for the courts to untangle the details.””

Santa Clarita foster family won’t give up on Lexi despite legal setback [Los Angeles Daily News 7/12/16 by Brenda Gazzar]

Update 7:“The California family denied by the California Court of Appeals in their effort to regain custody of 6-year-old Lexi, a foster child who had never known another home, now is appealing to the state Supreme Court.

And there’s now a powerful new precedent from an adjacent state that lends support to their contention that Lexi should be returned to her foster parents, Rusty and Summer Page. The girl, who is 1/64 Choctaw, was removed in March from the Pages and placed by order of the tribe with distant step-cousins in Utah under the authority of the Indian Child Welfare Act, the ICWA.

WND learned Friday that a petition has been filed with the state’s high court asking whether the ICWA applies if children “have never been domiciled on Indian lands and lack any significant connection to a tribe.”

It also questions whether the law violates the Fifth and 14th Amendments “as several California appellate courts have held.”

Additionally, it asks whether ICWA “requires the removal of a child from her fit de facto parents where that placement complied with ICWA’s foster placement provisions … and the child has not otherwise been removed from that placement and is not in need of a new placement.”

And, it asks what is “good cause” for exceptions to the federal mandate.

It was last March that social workers forcibly removed Lexi from the Pages’ Los Angeles-area home where she had lived since she was about 2 years old. The Pages want to adopt her.

But the ICWA gives the tribe authority over Lexi, even though she is only 1/64th Choctaw. The tribe actually ordered her to live with a non-blood relative who is not Native American.

Those involved in the case, from the tribe to county agents, agree Lexi has formed an exceptionally strong bond with her foster parents. The girl considers Rusty and Summer to be her parents and the Pages to be her family.

Lexi’s biological mother is struggling with drug addiction and gave up the child when she was 17 months old. Lexi’s father has a criminal record of grand theft and domestic abuse and has terminated efforts to reunite with the child.

A spokeswoman for the Pages told WND their legal team has reached out with a filing in the state Supreme Court, asking for an end to a decades-long disagreement in the state court system over the ICWA.

The spokeswoman’s report said: “Despite recommendations from child experts, Lexi has not been allowed to speak with the Page family since she was forcefully removed from her home nearly five months ago. Since being removed from the only family she had ever known, Lexi has missed piano recitals, participating in musicals, family vacations and many other traditions Lexi was so very fond of.”

Part of the issue is that the ICWA itself is under constitutional challenge in Arizona. Lawyers in that battle announced Friday that a 2-year-old girl known as “A.D.” had been awarded to adoptive parents against the wishes of the Gila River Indian Community.

The Goldwater Institute, which is backing the fight against the ICWA there, confirmed the Arizona Court of Appeals found the tribe acted too late in the process to prevent the adoption.

A.D. was taken from a drug-addicted mother shortly after birth and placed with a non-Indian foster family.

“This decision comes as a great relief,” said Adi Dynar, the Goldwater Institute attorney who argued the case. “But it just highlights the problems with the Indian Child Welfare Act. This law creates a separate and unequal legal system for children of Native American ancestry.”

The legal challenge to the ICWA is pending in federal court in Arizona, and the custodial ruling came from the state court system. A.D. is one of the children involved in the federal case, too.

The ICWA was adopted in 1978 and applies to children who are “eligible” for tribal membership.

“It gives tribal governments powers equal to – and sometimes greater than – the rights of birth parents,” Goldwater said.

“Even if an Indian parent wants her child adopted, and doesn’t want the act to apply, the tribe can override those wishes and block the adoption,” explained Dynar.

It is the one time when current federal law permits racial discrimination in adoption.

“They’re the only people it’s legal to discriminate against on the basis of race,” said Dynar. “But it’s important to remember: all Indian children are citizens of the United States, entitled to constitutional protections.”

The court decision technically held that the tribe should have taken over the case, if it wanted to be involved, before the biological parents’ rights had been terminated by the court.

Early in the dispute, the Choctaw Nation of Oklahoma issued a statement on the case:

The Choctaw Nation’s values of faith, family and culture are what makes our tribal identity so important to us. From the beginning of this case, the Choctaw Nation advocated for Lexi’s placement with her family.

Lexi’s family was identified early on, and they have created a loving relationship with her. The Pages were always aware that the goal was to place Lexi with her family, and her permanent placement has been delayed due to the Pages’ opposition to the Indian Child Welfare Act.

We understand the public’s concerns for Lexi’s well being as this is our main focus, but it is important to respect the privacy of this little girl. We believe that following the Choctaw Nation’s values is in Lexi’s best interest.

The Choctaw Nation will continue to uphold these values and advocate for Lexi’s long-term best interest.

 

WND has reported multiple turns in the case, including when it was revealed one of the judges in the case facilitated a tribal “blessing” in the courtroom, when a social worker who worked on the case pleaded for the court to consider what is best for Lexi, when the state Supreme Court initially ruled against the foster family and when social workers warned the little girl would be traumatized by being ripped from the only family she has known.

The last time the ICWA was considered in the U.S. Supreme Court, in 2013, the justices sent a case over custody of a young girl to the South Carolina Supreme Court, which ordered “Baby Veronica” to have her adoption by non-Indian Matt and Melanie Capobianco finalized.

The couple, like the Pages, had lost custody for a time because of the ICWA, which allows Indian tribes to dictate the placement of children in protective services cases even if the child has only a small fractional percentage of Indian heritage.

The 2013 Baby Veronica case had almost identical circumstances: She was part-Indian and her father, who had lost custody, tried to get her back. The courts ultimately ruled in favor of the adoptive family.

Lexi’s case burst into the headlines when social workers took the crying, resisting child away from her Santa Clarita, California, foster family.

“We ended race-based discrimination 50 years ago in the country. But not for Native American children,” said Timothy Sandefur, vice president for litigation at the Goldwater Institute. “ICWA subjects Native American children to separate and substandard considerations in adoption and foster care cases. It is harder to remove them from abusive situations and it is harder to keep them in safe and loving homes than it is for children of any other race.”

On its website, the Goldwater Institute recounted the similar case of Laurynn Whiteshield and her sister, Michaela.

“Laurynn spent most of her life in a home where she was loved and protected. From the time she was nine months old, she and her twin sister, Michaela, were raised by Jeanine Kersey-Russell, a Methodist minister and third-generation foster parent in Bismarck, North Dakota. When the twins were almost three years old, the county sought to make them available for adoption. But Laurynn and Michaela were not ordinary children.

“They were Indians.

“And because they were Indians, their fates hinged on the Indian Child Welfare Act, a federal law passed in 1978 to prevent the breakup of Indian families and to protect tribal interests in child welfare cases.

“The Spirit Lake Sioux tribe had shown no interest in the twins while they were in foster care. But once the prospect of adoption was raised, the tribe invoked its powers under ICWA and ordered the children returned to the reservation, where they were placed in the home of their grandfather in May 2013.

“Thirty-seven days later, Laurynn was dead, thrown down an embankment by her grandfather’s wife, who had a long history of abuse, neglect, endangerment, and abandonment involving her own children,” the report says.

William Allen of the Coalition for the Protection of Indian Children and Families, who is a critic of the law, said: “I would go so far as to call the legislation a policy of child sacrifice in the interests of the integrity of the Indian tribes, meaning the end has nothing to do with the children. It has everything to do with the tribe. To build tribal integrity, tribal coherence, the law was passed in spite of the best interests of the children.”

 

Family appeals to California Supreme Court for Lexi’s return
 [WND 8/14/16 by Bob Unruh]

 

This is the Court of Appeals Decision: here.

Update 8: “Family members said Monday they were disappointed that the U.S. Supreme Court declined to hear a case involving their former foster daughter, a girl with Native American ancestry, who was ordered removed from their California home and reunited with relatives in Utah.

Rusty and Summer Page said in a statement that the high court’s decision was a ‘crushing blow.’

Lexi, who is 1.5 percent, or 1/64 Choctaw, was six years old when she was taken from her foster home near Los Angeles in a tearful parting last March.

She was placed with extended family in Utah under a decades-old federal law designed to keep Native American families together.