## Facts

- In February 2014, Iowa’s Department of Human Services (DHS) received reports that the parents of four children were engaging in domestic violence and using methamphetamine while caring for the children.
- Both parents went to jail, and the children were removed from the home and placed in out-of-home care with their maternal aunt and uncle.
- The aunt and uncle became licensed caregivers for the children and received state financial assistance to help meet the children’s needs, including items such as day-care reimbursement, respite-care reimbursement, and child-support-related assistance.
- The children were anxious and uncertain about their future and struggled to understand why their parents were not taking the steps needed to regain custody.
- At a March 2015 permanency hearing, the juvenile court ordered the children to remain with the aunt and uncle.
- By that time, the mother had been released from prison, but she had not fully participated in DHS services, including drug testing.
- The juvenile court found the children were doing well in the aunt and uncle’s home and concluded a permanent legal placement was in the children’s best interests. The court directed DHS to file a petition to terminate parental rights.
- The children’s caseworkers supported termination and adoption by the aunt and uncle as the best plan for the children.
- The aunt and uncle stated they intended to provide a home for the children permanently whether or not they adopted. However, the aunt raised concerns that adoption would reduce financial support because certain state assistance available during the licensed-caregiver arrangement would end after termination of parental rights.
- An adoption subsidy would be available, but it would provide less assistance than what the aunt and uncle received while serving as licensed caregivers.
- Iowa law allowed “another planned permanent living arrangement” (APPLA) as a permanency option. DHS, the guardian ad litem, and the caseworkers did not support APPLA here, describing it as leaving children without the security of full legal family membership.
- After considering APPLA, the juvenile court terminated the mother’s parental rights. The mother appealed.

## Issues

1. Did the State prove grounds for termination of the mother’s parental rights under Iowa’s termination framework?
2. Was termination, with a plan for adoption by the maternal aunt and uncle, in the children’s best interests rather than selecting APPLA or another less permanent option influenced in part by funding differences?

## Decision

- The Iowa Court of Appeals affirmed the juvenile court’s order terminating the mother’s parental rights.
- The court agreed the record supported termination given the children’s extended removal and the mother’s failure to meaningfully engage in services needed to safely resume custody.
- The court agreed that the children’s best interests required a permanent legal family relationship and that adoption by the aunt and uncle offered that stability.
- The court rejected the argument that the aunt and uncle’s financial concerns, or the higher level of state assistance available during the licensed-caregiver arrangement, justified keeping the children in a less permanent status through APPLA.

## Legal Principles

- Appellate review of termination-of-parental-rights decisions is de novo, while giving weight to the juvenile court’s fact findings and credibility determinations.
- The best-interests analysis prioritizes the child’s safety, long-term growth, and the need for a stable and lasting home within the timeframe set by statute.
- When adoption is feasible and consistent with the child’s welfare, courts may decline less permanent permanency options such as APPLA that leave a child without full legal permanence.
- Placement with relatives does not bar termination when statutory grounds are met and a permanent legal resolution better serves the child.
- Financial consequences to caregivers (including differences between state assistance tied to licensed-caregiver status and adoption subsidies) do not control the permanency decision; the child’s need for stability and belonging is the focus.

## Conclusion

The Court of Appeals affirmed termination because the mother had not shown sustained progress toward safe reunification, the children needed certainty after a lengthy removal, and adoption by the aunt and uncle provided a permanent legal home that APPLA could not, even though adoption would reduce certain forms of state financial assistance available during the prior placement arrangement.


In the Interest of T.G., 881 N.W.2d 470 (2016)