In the Interest of T.G.

In February 2014, Iowa’s Department of Human Services (the agency) (plaintiff) received allegations that the parents of four children were engaging in domestic violence and doing methamphetamines while taking care of their children. Both parents went to jail, and the children were placed in foster care with their maternal aunt and uncle, who became licensed foster parents and received financial support for the children. At a permanency hearing in March 2015, a juvenile court determined that the children should remain in the care of the aunt and uncle. Although the children’s mother (defendant) was already out of prison by this time, she had not fully participated with services, such as drug testing, provided by the agency. In the meantime, the children remained anxious and uncertain, not understanding why their parents failed to do what was needed to regain custody of them. The juvenile court found that the children were thriving with their aunt and uncle and determined that a permanent placement was in their best interests. The court instructed the agency to file a petition for the termination of parental rights. The children’s caseworkers felt termination of parental rights and adoption by the uncle and aunt was best. The aunt and uncle indicated that they planned to provide a home for the children forever, whether they adopted the children or not. However, the aunt mentioned that allowing the children to remain in a status less permanent than adoption would be best. While in foster care, the state was providing the aunt and uncle with financial support to assist in caring for the children, such as reimbursement for day care, respite care, and child support. Upon termination of parental rights, this aid would cease. An adoption subsidy would be available, but it would not provide as much support as was available before the termination of parental rights. Iowa law provided an option referred to as another planned permanent living arrangement, but neither the agency, the guardian ad litem, nor the caseworkers agreed this less permanent option was in the children’s best interests. Children in such placements often felt they do not belong anywhere and existed in limbo hoping they might someday return home. The juvenile court considered the less permanent option but terminated the mother’s parental rights in the children’s best interests. The mother appealed the juvenile court’s order.