The Case of Baby A (AKA Save Lexi)

l am sorry I haven’t been around for a bit, stories had calmed down in the news, the Hodgins gave up their fight for Sonya and I wanted to make sure that she had the peace she deserves.   As I have heard nothing about her, I’m going to assume that she is living the life of a typical child with her family outside the limelight.

Congratulations Sonya!

Then the wagons started to circle around another case and as the names (Lori Alvino McGill being one of them and Johnston Moore being another) seemed familiar I went to look for it.

THEN as something else seemed familiar, I looked back a few years.

Choctaw Father Thwarted by Foster Couple

This was the story that had come up.  I remembered this story and reread the facts and then went to the Court of Appeals documentation right here.   Bear in mind that the story referenced above was from 2014 so that has been going on for at LEAST the two years that the public relations people are talking about.

The claim is that she was placed in the home and now she’s going to family she doesn’t know and is being pulled from the only home she has ever known.  In fact, it is so cruel that they couldn’t tell her she was leaving.   Or their other children that she was leaving.   (I have a VERY difficult time believing this and I’ll show you why)

First myth to bust is that the Choctaw nation just now stepped up to address issues with the child.   The Choctaw knew of this case from the get go.   Here is what was stated in the COA document:

” The tribe consented to the girl’s placement with a non-Indian foster family to facilitate efforts to reunify the girl with her father.”

and

“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.”

This was within a year.   The Pages were at no time pre adoptive parents nor was adoption in the cards for them.   To further prove this, I give you the following statement from the COA document.   “By the time Alexandria was placed with the P.s in December 2011, her extended family in Utah, the R.s, were aware of dependency proceeding and had spoken to representatives of the tribe about their interest in adopting Alexandria. The tribe agreed to initial foster placement with the P.s because it was close to father at a time when he was working on reunification. If reunification services were terminated, the tribe recommended placement with the R.s in Utah.”

Does this sound like a family that just showed up out of nowhere?   Does this sound like the situation should have been a shock to them?   The system was working as it was supposed to do.    When reunification failed (for a multitude of reasons) then the child was to be placed with a tribal approved extended family member in Utah who were more then willing to take on the child.

In addition as also stated in the Court documents:  “The Department consistently reminded the P.s that Alexandria is an Indian child subject to the ICWA placement preferences. At some point after father’s reunification efforts failed, the P.s decided they wanted to adopt Alexandria. They discussed the issue with the Department social worker, who advised them that the tribe had selected the R.s as the planned adoptive placement.”

Now lest you say “but they were strangers to her,” this is also stated in the court documents, “The R.s expressed their interest in adopting Alexandria as early as October 2011. They were initially told that to avoid confusing Alexandria, they should not contact her while father attempted to reunify. If reunification efforts failed, they were the tribe’s first choice for adoption. The family has approval for Alexandria to be placed with them under the Interstate Compact on the Placement of Children (ICPC). The R.s first visited Alexandria shortly after the court terminated father’s reunification services. Since then, they video chat with Alexandria about twice a week and have had multiple in-person visits in Los Angeles. The P.s refer to the R.s as family from Utah. At one point, when Alexandria asked if she was going to Utah, the P.s responded that they did not know for sure, but it was possible.” – so no, her family has not been a stranger to her and there have been visits even through all of the upheaval that the Page’s have put her through.   Granted, at the time what was also testified was:  “Russell and Summer P. testified that before and following a recent visit by the R.s, most likely in June 2013, Alexandria was upset and said she did not want to visit with the R.s and did not like it when they came to visit. Russell P. acknowledged that the change in Alexandria’s feelings coincided with the birth of a new baby in the P. family and a transition to a new therapist for Alexandria.”   (All of this took place when she was three and she has had visits and Skype calls ever since.)

Does this sound like a situation where the foster parents did not know what was going to happen or how the system was supposed to work?

The transition was supposed to take place in April 2013 and was agreed upon by ALL parties as stated in the COA document, “As ordered by the court on April 12, 2013, the Department arranged a conference call to discuss a transition plan in anticipation of a possible court order directing placement with the R.s. The call lasted 90 minutes and included the P.s in Los Angeles; the R.s from Utah; Ruth Polcino, Alexandria’s therapist at United American Indian Involvement; Polcino’s supervisor, Jennifer Lingenfelter; Alexandria’s attorney, Kerri Anderson; Department social worker Roberta Javier, as well as two other Department employees. 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 Alexandria that she is going to with the R.s, who are family who love Alexandria very much and will take good care of her. The P.s would reassure Alexandria that they love her and will always be a part of her family.”    This is why I don’t believe that the courts told them to hide the truth from this child.   Because these plans were put in place all the way back in 2013.

From there, the foster parents have kept this in court up until now.   And now they are calling out that this is the “Only home she has ever known” and implying to the media that she is going to perfect strangers that will traumatize her forever.

From there, the comments have been fast and fierce and like in the Veronica case some of the most racist are coming out of the woodwork.

What is more disturbing was the handover yesterday.   Troy Dunn and MULTIPLES of television cameras and protesters all around the family.   Johnston Moore (who I referred to in previous entries – An Open Letter to Focus On the Family and iCareAboutOrphans Regarding Orphan Care and Multiple Organizations: One Purpose as two of them is the Save Lexi moderator and has further pulled me away from any support of Focus on the Family until they cut all ties with him.   He put out the home address on Facebook and encourage protesters to come to the home of this foster child.

Troy Dunn – referred to on a previous occasion – And Now Troy Dunn? – has also inserted himself into several other cases.   He was told to stop filming and that it was illegal and yet he continues to do it.

THEN on a hunch I did a search.   There is a website in process – yesterday I didn’t get screenshots but here it is today now that they have a horrific handover picture for the banner (similar to the Save Veronica Rose site)

Here is the start of it.

saveourlexi

Like I said, they did at least get a good shot here.   And they didn’t put her face up but that is still a foster child who is supposed to be protected UNDER THE LAW.   Her privacy is supposed to be sacred.

A little whois search on godaddy revealed some answers but brought more questions.

saveourlexiinfo

I whited out the phone numbers but I didn’t the address because here is the super strange thing about that address.   (and the registration date on it was Sunday March 20, 2016)   This address goes not to an office building but to a virtual office building.

Executive Suites in Oklahoma City – also this is where Kendall Sykes has an office on the same block.   Nothing about this organization at all.

Who is funding this?   Can someone bring that up because I’m getting a strong sense of deja vu.   Also no sign of whoever this Heather Parker is.   It’s odd.

Whether or not Jessica Munday is involved is waiting to be seen but with all the other players including Lisa Morris (You Will Know Them By Their Fruits: Why I Don’t Believe the CAICW is a Christian Organization) as well as several others, I am not surprised if she helped to orchestrate some of this but no proof.

And then, the person who is speaking for the child’s best interest according to herself?   Lori Alvino McGill – Lori Alvino McGill – A “Rising Star” Falling Rapidly – the woman who herself drunk posted a link accusing Dusten Brown of using several names and calling both Veronica and her older sister “illegitimate spawn”.

At this point, thankfully this child is on her way back to Utah with her family.    Unfortunately though, the trauma she experienced with the way that the foster parents and others chose to handle this transition is problematic.   Whether or not the foster parents are being used or decided to go ahead and choose to ally themselves with the forces that they did, it is not something I feel good about.

Save Lexi?   Save our Lexi?   After the display yesterday and seeing how that transition was handled I’m not sure that she needs to be saved from her family.   Because that video was horrendous.    If these foster parents still keep their resource license when this is over I really really want to know why.

Advertisements

25 Comments (+add yours?)

  1. Alyssa
    Mar 22, 2016 @ 17:20:58

    Thanks for writing this! I was shocked at how the hand over happened. The foster family made it so much worse for the poor child. Also, the racism of the supporters of this family is sickening.

    Reply

  2. Miriam Colvin
    Mar 22, 2016 @ 18:47:55

    Maybe one should consider if asking somebody to care for a child, and work in this child’s best interest, can be blamed for trying to avoid a seperation by all means. In the case of this foster child it’s just outrageous to make her go through this whole process of seperation again. Clearly legally this is a justified way, but from a human stand point it’s just wrong, to make a child suffer in that way. There is a lot of room for improvement, when it comes to advocating on behalf of a child’s best interest. If a foster placement results in the child’s full integration into the family, and bonding has happened to such a degree, a seperation has to be avoided by all means. To say in this case the transition will be easier, because the child has met the extended family, and talked to them on the phone, is just making it obvious how underestimated this whole process is. If anybody comes to a different conclusion, it’s out of ignorance to another humans suffering, in this case even a child’s.

    Reply

  3. Alyssa
    Mar 22, 2016 @ 18:50:04

    I hope you take a long couple minutes to think about what you just wrote. Sure, look at the facts all you want. But the court took way too long to come to this decision and Lexi WAS ripped away from the only family she’s ever known. you should be ashamed of yourself for writing the words ‘thankfully Lexi is on her way back to her family in Utah’. You might as well have written, ‘thankfully Lexi was taken from her mom and dad since before she can remember, thankfully she is going to live apart from her siblings, where she was raised, and go to live in a completely different place than she knows to be home. thankfully she has to start her life over at 6 years old..’ The writer of this article is looking at this through the most heartless lens ever and must not know the importance of family.. Do you have kids? What if the daughter you had had for 5 years was suddenly taken from you because of a 40 year old law? sure, she might be going to live with nice people, thats not the point. Are you saying you would be okay with that? would that be all fun and happy for you and you wouldn’t fight? I certainly hope you are just trying to stir up controversy and don’t actually believe what you wrote, because if you do, you should be extremely ashamed of your view because it is simply ridiculous. Yes they filmed her, yes they’re fighting, yes to all the facts, they love her and she is their daughter and that’s what any parent would do. you should examine yourself, this is a ridiculous article.

    Reply

    • metisme
      Mar 25, 2016 @ 07:39:57

      I am a parent and I fostered children for many years. Never would I subject any one of them to that kind of media circus. There were people filming her face…. screaming and crying at that little girl. How terrified she must have been. They could have removed ALL the drama… made the transition quietly then went to their lawyer and then made a public statement AFTER she was out of harm’s way. The Pages made the decision to put this child under the scrutiny of the entire world without concern for her emotional or physical well being.

      Reply

    • Brian
      Apr 01, 2016 @ 15:02:10

      Do you realize how ridiculous you sound. Complete emotion with no sense of logic and law. I guess we should throw out the constitution because, heck, it’s over 200 years old. The fact that the family of the child has been involved in this since the beginning and have been more than accommodating to the rules of the systems in place shows their determination in wanting to take care of the child. Do you have no concept of the what a foster family does? Does the fact that the child was never up for adoption, and the foster family knew that going in, make a dent in your obstinance? The Pages were wrong in not keeping the child aware of the circumstances in which she was living. That it was a temporary situation. And now, with their shenanigans, they may have messed up any opportunity for the child to remain in contact and have a relationship with the “siblings”. All of this could have been avoided and Lexi could have grown up with many loving people in her life. Now only time will tell how this will play out.

      Reply

    • cannereed
      Jul 15, 2016 @ 17:50:04

      We are speaking of paid caregivers who decided they wanted a child more than the child’s family even though they have been told all along that this child’s placement was only temporary and that the only plan was to unite this child with #1 the Father or #2 relatives in Utah. The placements were identified BEFORE the child came into the Page household. When it became apparent that the unificiation with the Father was not going to work Child services stepped up to start the reunification with and transfer to the family in Utah. The Pages initially agreed to support such action, but, almost immediately began and over 3 years obstructive legal process. Their Pro Bono Attorney was well aware that by filing legal action after legal action the child would not removed from their home until rulings were made and appeals filed. That is basically 3+ years of involuntary bonding y a couple that had neither custodial or parental rights to this child. The father, today, still has parental rights intact. This child is with her sisters where she should have been at age 3 except for the former caregivers ongoing refusal to comply the court ordered plan to return the child to her relatives.
      The thought that the former paid caregivers have more importance and control over this child is beyond scary. It opens the door for any legal stranger to simply decide they are better, more deserving than the real family. The unification is being monitored y 2 states under the ICPC. both states have reported that this child is doing very well, loves being with her sisters and family. They have further stated that the relatives are very loving and supportive. People should be placing this child’s long term happiness and security above the needs of her former caregivers.

      Reply

  4. canne
    Mar 22, 2016 @ 20:18:49

    Yet another case where temporary caregivers have been able to obstruct reunification with kin for years. When will this chaos stop? Children have the right to be raised by capable kin before any stranger placement. Fosters should recognize that their role is temporary support. Fosters can not simply decide they want a child more. It is a shame that this was allowed to drag on for years. A smooth reunification with kin should have taken place years ago.

    Reply

  5. Trackback: Lexi, ICWA, and the choice to love anyways
  6. Monica
    Mar 23, 2016 @ 02:22:02

    I feel sorry for the child Lexi because a child should of stayed with the family in Santa Clarita instead of the family in Utah because she was raised with the foster parents and should of stayed I know because I went through the same thing with my grandson I raised him from new born and now he is 4 years old and mom won’t let me talk to him the law sucks.

    Reply

    • PaulaB
      Mar 24, 2016 @ 15:22:36

      so as long as a family can keep hold of child against what the court and family want they can have the child? Ok I am going to come over to america and grab a baby any baby but cute would be better I will smuggle the baby out register it in my country as mine and in a few years be told she or he is mine because i have owned that child for x number of years.

      Reply

  7. Dorkzilla
    Mar 23, 2016 @ 11:51:52

    A very thorough account of what really happened leading up to the three ring circus the Pages arranged the day of that child’s removal. It amazes me that so many are hung up on the amount of time they managed to essentially hold her legal hostage and think that alone should give this family dibs. Even with the facts of the case outlined, people are still thinking length of possession counts more than the rules and the law.

    Spreading this like wildfire.

    Reply

  8. Carina
    Mar 23, 2016 @ 21:18:51

    It seems like it would be in the best interest of the little girl to remain with the Paiges. Especially if she had a time in 2013 of not wanting to be with R family for visits anymore.
    Really, this situation could go either way- legally in favor of the R family and ethically ( for the child’s well being) in favor of the Paige family.
    Also, the battle from the R family seems to be fueled by something underlying – like I wonder if it’s because the Paiges are not Mormon and the R’s are.
    Just a hunch.

    Reply

    • PaulaB
      Mar 24, 2016 @ 15:23:41

      Carina they did this with another child and lost that child as well. Did you know that?

      Reply

      • Cathy Probst
        Jul 23, 2016 @ 17:16:20

        Paula, there has been conflicting information regarding the Page’s other former foster child. There is also the claim that they did NOT try to adopt him; that they supported his transition back to his family and that they are still on good terms with that family and they see the child sometimes. Whether the Pages are right or wrong, there are many posters out there who hate them so much that they will say practically anything to put them down. There is also some question as to the legal technicalities of L’s situation early on. Many have opined that if the grandmother hadn’t signed her son up for the Choctaw Tribe, that minus ICWA, the Pages might have been in line to apply to adopt “L” quite legally, as the “Extended Family” definition OFF of ICWA only includes “step PARENTS”, NOT ” step GRANDPARENTS.” under California law. The FOWH Board has admitted openly that without the strictures of ICWA, “the outcome might have been very different.” (!)That can ONLY mean that straight California dependency law varies in some important details from ICWA, otherwise FOWH would not have made that statement about a possibly “very different outcome.” Forgive me, but to define people with miniscule Native blood and NO tribal/cultural exposure as Native, kind of at the last minute, strikes many of us as more “working the system,” in contrast to actually saving culturally and biologically Native children from an abusive assimilation….an assimilation which we all deplore I’m sure. There have been many cases of the destruction of Native families….but this case, whatever it is, is NOT one of them.

      • gailfarrington
        Jul 24, 2016 @ 20:58:08

        ICWA should be the law of the land for all children – it is considered the gold standard for child welfare cases.

        If these things were not happening then there would not need to be an Indian Child Welfare Act and in fact there needs to be a Universal Child Welfare Act that needs to address the discrepancy.

  9. CHRISTOPHER M CHAMBERLIN
    Mar 24, 2016 @ 01:41:13

    I am in the same situation, my daughter was taken due to my addictions and was eventually adopted. I am Native American and my daughter is my blood, but when social services made their attempt to contact my tribe, they didn’t try hard enough. If there is anyway to talk to Mrs.McGill in depth about my situation that would be wonderful. Thank you, Chris

    Reply

  10. Robyn C
    Mar 25, 2016 @ 06:50:36

    I truly can’t believe, after reading all of the facts, that people still think Alexandria should remain with the Pages. These people denied her her family for more than 3 years. They consumed resources that could have been put to better use in helping other children. They caused the child all of this pain, which could have easily been avoided by accepting the court’s decision, initially made in November 2012.

    Reply

  11. ellecuardaigh
    Mar 25, 2016 @ 13:58:04

    Reblogged this on elle cuardaigh and commented:
    Lexi is exactly where she belongs. She is home. The media whores need to find a new victim.

    Reply

  12. iwishiwasadopted
    Mar 25, 2016 @ 16:25:22

    The goal of foster care is family reunification. People who can’t live with that should not foster. She is home, and it’s time for her foster family to accept it.

    Reply

  13. Susan Odell
    Mar 25, 2016 @ 21:31:44

    Beautifully written Elle. I truly hope this opens eyes. What you’ve written here clearly shows how wrong all that was. I, too, feel so happy she’s on her way to her true family, where she belongs.

    Reply

  14. margaret59
    Mar 25, 2016 @ 23:14:28

    I am noticing that the family in Utah is NOT making a spectacle of this. So, who has the child’s best interest at heart? I am disgusted by the Pages. They staged that horrific transfer.

    Reply

  15. lyn77
    Mar 30, 2016 @ 15:22:24

    they are not making a spectacle because they got what they wanted they won the case. Its truly a difficult situation . Both bio parents lost custody. The family in utah makes it easier for the father to have access even though he has been a career criminal for 20 yrs and lost custody. the indian law was invoked as last resort of father to have access to his daughter after loss of custody. the pages fought in past and present due to bonding and concern for lexis safety due to her coming back from visits with her father that were red flags and the dfacs dept. and indian law dept ignored those red flags and did not pass on info to court regarding it. If the court had known,the ruling could have been different and it was stated as such in ct documents. This is information that is out there in public. Going with bio family is the gold standard but not when a childs safety could be in danger. The father will have access now to lexi. It was reported he went to dinner on one of lexis visits there, and he has a drug charge pending in CA. As an adopted person, the family I was placed in was far better than my bio family. I was not raised with a bio half brother but the benefits of being with a stable loving home outweighed being with my bio family no regrets.

    Reply

  16. brendakinziespear1
    Mar 31, 2016 @ 10:16:14

    I’m sorry but as soon as they said they wanted to adopt her she should of been removed from their home ASAP. Foster parents have no rights to take it upon themselves to claim a child as property. This is the flaw in the system. Once there is a dispute rather it be foster parents or adoptive parents and family (thoses who share DNA) are fighting for the right to raise the child. That child should be removed from that home ASAP. Right now they stay in the same home and the selfish ones who rob the child the right to DNA family drag it out in court for years. Then always say “this is the only home she/he knows, it would be harmful to the child to be removed from the only home she/he knows. They don’t want to go with their DNA family because they are strangers” . well the reason the child feels this way is in the years of court battles the child is brainwashed by the selfish ones that they love them more and they cut off communication between the child and their DNA family. So if the child was removed from that home it would only be fair. Neither home should have the child until its settled. That would be in the best interest of the child. I’m so sick of adoptive parents and foster parents thinking that DNA family doesn’t matter. Esp when the adoption is being fought. There are a lot of dads fighting to get their kids back from adoption because they have no rights only the bio mom does and then it takes years of fighting in court. Most lose because of the fact the selfish adoptive parents drag it out for years and they get to keep the child and bond with the child. That’s not right at all.

    Reply

    • cannereed
      Jul 15, 2016 @ 17:54:34

      correct- Their job was to support the reunification plan. Obstruction was a violation of their contract, one of many. Unfortunately since theyr kept filing legal actions they knew this would insure the child could not be removed from their home. In a sense their actions resulted in forced bonding. Further since they knew reunification was the plan they should have made sure she knew that they were NOT her “Mommy and Daddy” and that their children were not her siblings. They should not have publically referred to this child as Lexi Page. These are all markers that the foster caregivers had no intention of providing the support required and ordered y the court.

      Reply

  17. metisme
    Apr 06, 2016 @ 00:48:20

    This child is NOT their daughter. The Pages put this 6 year old child in danger by putting her knowingly and willingly in the public eye worldwide. They knew this child was never up for adoption yet they used the court system to prevent her from going home to extended family and siblings. They could have made the transfer with no drama yet they chose to let her be filmed. ..people screaming and crying…banging on the car… former foster mother Summer Page and her 3 children in the driveway hysterically screaming.. how terrifying for a small child. This is the second unadoptable child the pages have tried to keep. The second time they have tied up family courts trying to keep a child that doesn’t and never did belong to them. They should never be allowed to foster again. It seems like this couple is developing a pattern that should be of concern. Further they should face criminal charges for violating the privacy of this little girl. Now their gofundme account sits at over $40 grand. .. paraphernalia such as tshirts…bracelets. ..lockets. .banners etc. . all being sold using this little girls name. Seriously something wrong with these people! This is a terrible violation of a 6 year old’s right to privacy.

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: