CHILDREN AND THE LAW
...Dependency Petitions
......Dispositional Hearing
.........Placement With Relatives
............In General
 22 Cards On This Topic:
  • Probation officers shall give primary consideration to recommending placement of minor with relatives, if in best interests.
  • Statutory preference for placement of child with specified relatives in Welf. & Inst. Code §300 actions.
  • Rights of relatives to participate in dependency proceedings.
  • Relative’s preference does not act as evidentiary presumption that can overcome court’s duty to act in best interest of child.
  • Remand required where juv. ct. failed to apply statutory preference for relative placement, and failed to determine if Agency abused its discretion in rejecting parents' relinquishment of C for adoption by designated relatives.
  • Error not to grant relative caretakers' ordinary writ of mandate compelling DSS to act per W&IC 16507.6 w/in 180 days so others similarly situated would not lose fed. foster case funding for voluntary placement Cs.
  • In removing Cs from PAPs, best interest of Cs requires juv. court consider facts that led to emergency removal and circumstances up to and including point when court decides whether or not removal should be permanent.
  • Relative placement preference applies at least through family reunification period and W&IC 361.3(d) expands, rather than contracts, application of the preference.
  • Because W&IC 361.4 (d)(2) does not apply to removal of dependent children from an existing placement, it does not deprive dependency court of discretion to allow dependent child to remain in his or her placement.
  • M failed to prove County breached any mandatory duty in placing him in foster home where he was molested rather than relative or other placement. Preferences governing relative placement decisions.
  • DCFS may place dependent Cs in adoptive home after termination of parental rights; reversal required where proper weight not given to DCFS' recommendation for relative adoption.
  • W&IC §361.4 (d)(2) prohibition against placing dependent child in home where child would have contact with an adult who has been convicted of a crime formerly held to be mandatory.
  • Preference for placement with relative must be balanced with effect placement likely to have on reunification.
  • Court abused discretion by denying placement of dependent children with grandparents; despite problem relationship, no evidence GPs would thwart reunification efforts.
  • Proper standard to review determination of relative placement is abuse of discretion.
  • Trial court failed to give grandparents statutory preference; request made in open court sufficient to require investigation.
  • Grandparents’ failure to contact social worker following jurisdiction hearing not waiver of preferential right to placement.
  • Relative preference should be considered if made at 6-month review. Relative placement is determination of fact, not law.
  • Juvenile court properly considered statutory factors in placing minor with maternal aunt for long-term foster care.
  • Relative’s request for placement of child too late if made at permanency planning hearing. Rationale for preference discussed.
  • Social worker and court properly considered possible relative placement.
  • Grandparent has standing to participate in disposition hearing.


    •