Opinion ID: 2586510
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: issues

Text: [¶ 4] Mother raises these issues: 1. Whether the district court erred in ignoring the recognized fundamental right of association of family by ordering permanent placement of the minor children outside the biological family. 2. Whether the district court erred in ordering permanent placement of the minor children outside the home despite a clear Department of Family Services policy and Supreme Court preference that makes relative [kinship/family] placement a priority. DFS posits these as the issues: I. Does a mother whose children are in the custody of the Department of Family Services have standing to argue that the familial rights of her brother and sister-in-law have been violated by the court's permanency plan of adoption by the children's foster parents? II. Did the court properly consider the best interests of the minor children when conducting a permanency hearing? The GAL states these issues: A. [Mother] does not have standing to raise on behalf of [Uncle and Aunt] alleged violations of Department of Family Services policies or violations of fundamental rights. B. The district court correctly ruled that the best interests of the minor children would best be served by placement with and adoption by the Foster Parents.