In re A.G.

Mother and Father (defendants) were the parents of child A.G., who lived with Mother. When A.G. was seven years old, she was adjudicated a child in need of protection and allowed to remain in her mother’s care pursuant to a case plan provided by the social-services department (the department). A court entered a disposition order accepting the department’s case plan and recommending services. However, two weeks later, Mother was arrested, and the department placed A.G. in foster care. Later, the department sought to terminate Mother’s rights. However, the court denied the request because Mother had made progress in addressing her alcoholism, mental-health issues, and violent relationships, although not disclosing information regarding her treatment. The court determined that more time was needed for reunification. Eventually, Father began seeking visitation rights and physically attacked Mother. Mother left home and began staying at a crisis center. However, Father discovered where Mother was staying through court filings. Thus, Mother had to take shelter in another crisis center two hours away, causing Mother to refuse to disclose her address, employment information, and mental-health records to the department. Due to Father’s threats toward A.G.’s foster parents, the department moved A.G. to another foster home and, for some reason, refused to disclose A.G.’s location to Mother. Mother found stability in her new community, securing an apartment and a job. However, the department considered the case to be at a standstill and filed to terminate Mother’s rights again. The court denied this request a second time, citing the foregoing facts and the fact that there had been no change in circumstances that indicated stagnation or deterioration of Mother’s parenting ability. The court did terminate Father’s rights. Reunification efforts resumed, but after A.G. and Mother’s Christmas visit went very badly three months later and Mother still refused to provide information, the court found that there were changed circumstances and modified the disposition for A.G. to long-term foster care. This meant A.G. would not be reunited with Mother, but Mother’s rights would not be terminated. The court accepted the department’s findings that other alternatives were not appropriate. Father appealed unsuccessfully. Mother appealed, arguing that the court erred in finding changed circumstances and in ordering a disposition of long-term foster care, which would not provide A.G. with permanency.