382 For instance, during the second termination proceeding, it was revealed through

hospital records from Carlos’s birth that Bail Romero had left the hospital while Carlos was still in the nursery. Bail Romero did not notify anyone that she was leaving. She did return to bring Carlos home with her. See In re Adoption of Romero, No. 07AO-JU00477, at *34–35. 383. Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745, 753 (1982).

384. See WESSLER, supra note 15, at 22–25; see also UNIV. OF ARIZ., supra note 16, at 2 (stating that through its research, attorneys, judges, and case workers all reported experience with cases involving parents in immigration detention or deportation proceedings); Rabin,

supra note 16, at 114–18 (2011) (noting that because the child welfare system and ICE do

not collect this information, it is difficult to determine the number of the families affected). The Department of Human Services Inspector General reported that from 1998 to 2007, 108,434 parents of U.S.-citizen children were deported. Rabin, supra note 16, at 114. Additionally, Rabin conducted surveys and interviews of personnel in the Pima County Juvenile System to determine the frequency with which children are involved with the child welfare system as a result of a parent’s deportation. Based on the information she gathered, Rabin concluded that “the numbers of such cases in the system suggest that immigration status arises frequently enough for it to be an issue about which personnel in the child welfare system are aware, but not so frequently that they are accustomed to dealing with such cases in a prescribed, uniform manner.” Id. at 118.

385. See Thronson, supra note 40, at 54 (noting that few family court decisions are appealed).

386. See, e.g., In re M.M., 587 S.E.2d 825 (Ga. Ct. App. 2003); In re Termination of the Parental Rights of Doe, 281 P.3d 95 (Idaho 2012); In re B., 756 N.W.2d 234 (Mich. Ct. App. 2008); In re Adoption of C.M.B.R., 332 S.W.3d 793 (Mo. 2011); State v. Maria L. (In re

Our child protection system has had very little, almost non-existent success at reunifying children, whether born in the USA or in a foreign country, with parents who come to the USA (1) undocumented, (2) poor, (3) uneducated/illiterate, (4) unable to communicate in English, (5) culturally segregated. . . . If children of these parents come into care, they are virtually doomed by these five factors and the probability of permanent loss of these children is overwhelmingly high.387

There are 5.5 million children in the United States with at least one undocumented parent.388 _{Three quarters of these children are U.S. citizens.}389 _With

increased immigration enforcement, parents and children living in mixed status households face the threat of separation. For example, from approximately 2000 to 2009, the government deported over 100,000 parents who had U.S.-citizen children.390 _{The Applied Research Center (ARC) conservatively estimates that}

there are currently 5,100 children in foster care that have either a parent detained by ICE or a parent that has been deported, representing 1.25 percent of the total foster care population.391 _{According to the ARC, “If these rates continue through the next}

five years, at least 15,000 additional children will face threats to reunification with their detained and deported mothers and fathers.”392

There are various ways that children of undocumented parents come into contact with the child welfare system. When an undocumented parent is arrested by ICE— for instance, during a workplace raid—and later detained, it can cause family separation, which then may result in state intervention.393 _{In other instances, an}

undocumented parent is investigated for or charged with abuse or neglect.394 _ICE

387. WESSLER, supra note 15, at 18. 388. PASSEL &COHN, supra note 33, at 7. 389. Id.

390. AJAY CHAUDRY,RANDY CAPPS,JUAN MANUEL PEDROZA,ROSE MARIA CASTANEDA, ROBERT SANTOS &MOLLY M.SCOTT, URBAN INST., FACING OUR FUTURE:CHILDREN IN THE AFTERMATH OF IMMIGRATION ENFORCEMENT 1 (2009), available at http://www.urban.org /UploadedPDF/412020_FacingOurFuture_final.pdf.

391. WESSLER, supra note 15, at 23. 392. Id.

393. See CHAUDRY ET AL., supra note 390, at 13–26 (describing family separations as a result of immigration enforcement); see also S.M. v. E.M.B.R. (In re Adoption of C.M.B.R.), 332 S.W.3d 793 (Mo. 2011) (undocumented mother arrested during a workplace raid).

394. See, e.g., Anita C. v. Superior Court, No. B213283, 2009 WL 2859068 (Cal. Ct. App. Sept. 8, 2009) (finding that mom, who plead guilty to child cruelty for leaving children alone while she worked, and who lived in unhygienic living conditions, supported termination of her parental rights); In re B., 756 N.W.2d 234 (Mich. Ct. App. 2008) (reversing termination involving undocumented parents whose rights had been terminated by the juvenile court following their deportation); State v. Maria L. (In re Interest of Angelica L.), 767 N.W.2d 74 (Neb. 2009) (reversing termination of mother’s rights in which mom who identified herself to police as the babysitter was arrested for obstructing a government

may be notified in these circumstances, resulting in the parent’s apprehension by ICE and subsequent removal from the United States.395 _{Even if these reports are}

unsubstantiated at a later date, the parent’s deportation may become the justification for termination of parental rights.396 _{Some cases involve an}

undocumented parent who is incarcerated because of a criminal conviction, resulting in separation from his or her child.397 _{After completion of the criminal}

sentence, the parent may be deported.398

Because of family separations due to immigration enforcement, as well as reports indicating that undocumented parents are losing their parental rights, Congress recently introduced legislation aimed at protecting immigrant children