of this family[,]” thereby contravening the law’s purported purpose of encouraging “family unity.” Although we have not yet approved the imputation of a parent’s abandonment of LPR status to the parent’s unemancipated child, we now hold that such imputation may be allowed consistent with well-established authority. See Miss. Band of Choctaw Indians v. Holyfield, 490 U.S. 30, 48, 109 S.Ct. 1597, 104 L.Ed.2d 29 (1989) (“Since most minors are legally incapable of forming the requisite intent to establish a domicile, their domicile is determined by that of their parents.”); Singh v. Gonzales, 451 F.3d 400, 409 (6th Cir. 2006) (acknowledging the “BIA’s history of imputing parents’ ... intent to abandon LPR status to their minor children”) ; Senica v. INS, 16 F.3d 1013, 1016 (9th Cir.1994) (<HOLDING>); Nikoi v. Att’y Gen. of the U.S., 939 F.2d
holding that the bia correctly imputed a parents knowledge that she and her children were not eligible for entry to the united states to her children holding that dss was estopped to argue that the respondent mother was competent to surrender her children when dss had previously argued that she was so mentally ill that she could not care for her children holding birth mothers samesex partner was a presumed mother    because she received the children into her home and openly held them out as her natural children holding wife unreasonably exposed neighbors children to danger because she invited the children over in spite of knowing her husband had molested children in the past recognizing fundamental right of parents to care for their children