CHILDREN AND THE LAW
...Dependency Petitions
......Dispositional Hearing
.........Placement With Relatives
............Approval of Relative and Foster Homes
11 Cards On This Topic:

Requirements for approval of prospective guardian's home.

C does not have a due process right to be placed with half-brother who committed the equivalent of voluntary manslaughter.

Although abuse of discretion to exclude evidence re HHSA's reasons for refusing to approve GM's home for placement, error harmless as GM was living in new home not physically inspected and Cs could not be placed with her in any case.

Juv. court has jurisdiction to review HHSA's denial of criminal records exemption for abuse of discretion; on finding abuse, court's authority under W&IC 388 limited to directing agency to consider under proper legal standard.

W&IC 361.4, which limits placement of C who came w/in juvenile ct.'s jurisdiction as a dependent, doesn't limit court's discretion to order C returned to prospective APs after W&IC 366.26(n) hearing.

Juvenile court correct that it did not have the authority to place child with grandmother where HHSA denied exemption for her criminal conviction.

Until fingerprint clearance check disproved convictions of residents, or exemption granted, juv. court lacked jurisdiction to place C in new home with GM, regardless of continuity of GM's long-term foster care.

As no substantial evidence prior disposition ineffective or placement inappropriate under W&IC 361.3, juv. court erred by ordering Cs removed from GPs' home; court depends on HHSA for guidance but must exercise its own discretion.

As county may grant criminal records exemption for relative placement if given permission by state DSS, San Diego HHSA had the authority to grant or deny exemption.

Substantial evidence supported finding on W&IC 387 petitions that placement ineffective and removal in Cs' best interests where grandmother did not meet various W&IC 361.3 criteria.

Cases discussing approval of relative and foster homes.