(a)In any case in which a child is removed from the physical custody of their parents pursuant to Section 361, preferential consideration shall be given to a request by a relative of the child for placement of the child with the relative, regardless of the relative’s immigration status. In determining whether placement with a relative is appropriate, the county social worker and court shall consider, but shall not be limited to, consideration of all the following factors:
(1)The best interest of the child, including special physical, psychological, educational, medical, or emotional needs.
(2)The wishes of the parent, the
relative, and child, if appropriate.
(3)The provisions of Part 6 (commencing with Section 7950) of Division 12 of the Family Code regarding relative placement.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
(a)
In any case in which a child is removed from the physical custody of their parents pursuant to Section 361, preferential consideration shall be given to a request by a relative of the child for placement of the child with the relative, regardless of the relative’s immigration status. In determining whether placement with a relative is appropriate, the county social worker and court shall consider, but shall not be limited to, consideration of all the following factors:
(1)
The best interest of the child, including special physical, psychological, educational, medical, or emotional needs.
(2)
The wishes of the parent, the
relative, and child, if appropriate.
(3)
The provisions of Part 6 (commencing with Section 7950) of Division 12 of the Family Code regarding relative placement.
(4)
Placement of siblings and half siblings in the same home, unless that placement is found to be contrary to the safety and well-being of any of the siblings, as provided in Section 16002.
(5)
The good moral character of the relative and any other adult living in the home, including whether any individual residing in the home has a prior history of violent criminal acts or has been responsible for acts of child abuse or neglect.
(6)
The nature and duration of the relationship between the child
and the relative, and the relative’s desire to care for, and to provide legal permanency for, the child if reunification is unsuccessful.
(7)
The ability of the relative to do the following:
(A)
Provide a safe, secure, and stable environment for the child.
(B)
Exercise proper and effective care and control of the child.
(C)
Provide a home and the necessities of life for the child.
(D)
Protect the child from their parents.
(E)
Facilitate court-ordered reunification efforts with the parents.
(F)
Facilitate visitation with the child’s other relatives.
(G)
Facilitate implementation of all elements of the case plan.
(H)
(i)
Provide legal permanence for the child if reunification fails.
(ii)
However, any finding made with respect to the factor considered pursuant to this subparagraph and pursuant to subparagraph (G) shall not be the sole basis for precluding preferential placement with a relative.
(I)
Arrange for appropriate and safe childcare, as
necessary.
(8)
(A)
The safety of the relative’s home. For a relative to be considered appropriate to receive placement of a child under this section on an emergency basis, the relative’s home shall first be assessed pursuant to the process and standards described in Section 361.4.
(B)
In this regard, the Legislature declares that a physical disability, such as blindness or deafness, is no bar to the raising of children, and a county social worker’s determination as to the ability of a disabled relative to exercise care and control should center upon whether the relative’s disability prevents them from exercising care and control. The court shall order the parent to disclose to the county social worker the names,
residences, and any other known identifying information of any maternal or paternal relatives of the child. This inquiry shall not be construed, however, to guarantee that the child will be placed with any person so identified. The county social worker shall initially contact the relatives given preferential consideration for placement to determine if they desire the child to be placed with them. Those desiring placement shall be assessed according to the factors enumerated in this subdivision. The county social worker shall document these efforts in the social study prepared pursuant to Section 358.1. The court shall authorize the county social worker, while assessing these relatives for the possibility of placement, to disclose to the relative, as appropriate, the fact that the child is in custody, the alleged reasons for the custody, and the projected likely date for the child’s
return home or placement for adoption or legal guardianship. However, this investigation shall not be construed as good cause for continuance of the dispositional hearing conducted pursuant to Section 358.
(b)
In any case in which more than one relative requests preferential consideration pursuant to this section, each relative shall be considered under the factors enumerated in subdivision (a). Consistent with the legislative intent for children to be placed immediately with a relative, this section does not limit the county social worker’s ability to place a child in the home of a relative or a nonrelative extended family member pending the consideration of other relatives who have requested preferential consideration.
(c)
For purposes of this section:
(1)
“Preferential consideration” means that the relative seeking placement shall be the first placement to be considered and investigated.
(2)
“Relative” means an adult who is related to the child by blood, adoption, or affinity within the fifth degree of kinship, including stepparents, stepsiblings, and all relatives whose status is preceded by the words “great,” “great-great,” or “grand,” or the spouse of any of these persons even if the marriage was terminated by death or dissolution.
(d)
Subsequent to the hearing conducted pursuant to Section 358, whenever a new placement of the child must be made, consideration for placement shall again be given as described in this section to relatives who have not been found to
be unsuitable and who will fulfill the child’s reunification or permanent plan requirements. In addition to the factors described in subdivision (a), the county social worker shall consider whether the relative has established and maintained a relationship with the child.
(e)
If the court does not place the child with a relative who has been considered for placement pursuant to this section, the court shall state for the record the reasons placement with that relative was denied.
(f)
(1)
With respect to a child who satisfies the criteria set forth in paragraph (2), the department and any licensed adoption agency may search for a relative and furnish identifying information relating to the child to that relative if it is believed the child’s welfare
will be promoted thereby.
(2)
Paragraph (1) shall apply if both of the following conditions are satisfied:
(A)
The child was previously a dependent of the court.
(B)
The child was previously adopted and the adoption has been disrupted, set aside pursuant to Section 9100 or 9102 of the Family Code, or the child has been released into the custody of the department or a licensed adoption agency by the adoptive parent or parents.
(3)
As used in this subdivision, “relative” includes a member of the child’s birth family and nonrelative extended family members, regardless of whether the parental rights were terminated, provided that both of the following are true:
(A)
No appropriate potential caretaker is known to exist from the child’s adoptive family, including nonrelative extended family members of the adoptive family.
(B)
The child was not the subject of a voluntary relinquishment by the birth parents pursuant to Section 8700 of the Family Code or Section 1255.7 of the Health and Safety Code.
(g)
Placement of an Indian child shall comply with the placement preferences set forth in Section 361.31.