DES MOINES - The Iowa Department of Human Services rarely discusses specific cases but departed from that standard practice in commenting on the situation with Destiney Fisher.

Spokesman Roger Munns provided a statement in December. Excerpts follow:

"Decisions like these need to be understood in context. The Department of Human Services places great emphasis on strengthening families. There are thousands of founded cases of abuse or neglect in Iowa every year. In its desire to keep families intact, the DHS recommends that most of these children remain home during the time the family receives counseling and other services.

"When there is serious risk of re-abuse, the juvenile court may temporarily remove the child. Again, in its determination to strengthen families, the DHS works to achieve reunification. A vast majority of these children go back home with court permission. Iowa and other states are measured on how fast we make that happen and we're getting better all the time.

"When the court removes the child, the DHS looks for safe and suitable family members to step up and assume temporary custody while the original family gets back on its feet. We're measured on that, too. Thirty-eight percent of children temporarily removed from their homes are in relative placements, compared to the national average of 23 percent.

"DHS social workers know that not all children will be reunified, but all children deserve permanency. Thus, while reunification is the primary goal, concurrent planning must begin on finding another option that is safe for the child - adoption with either a relative or a nonrelative.

"In the Fisher case, from the time of the original removal in 2003 until court termination of the father's parental rights nearly two years later, the DHS went to unusual lengths to find a family placement.

"Usually a family determines which of the relatives is best-suited. In this case, there was no agreement and four sets of relatives expressed interest.

"In this two-year period, the family had ample time to make its case to the decision-maker - the juvenile court. The DHS plays an advisory role in child welfare cases, but it's just that, advisory. The family has just as much standing in court.

"In this case, there were other advisers to the court as well. Most important among them was the court-appointed lawyer whose job is to represent solely the child, not the state and not the family. This is the guardian ad litum.

"Every child in the child welfare system has a GAL. Other advisers in this case included professional social work agencies, the county attorney, a court-appointed special advocate and the foster parents who had contact with this child.

"All of these advisers met and dealt with the family. All had contact with the child. And all agreed with the judge's final decision in this case."