1 Filed 3/26/15 In re J.G. CA4/2 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115. IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOURTH APPELL ATE DISTRICT DIVISION TWO

In re J.G. et al., Persons Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law.
SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICES, Plaintiff and Respondent,

v. J.G., Defendant and Appellant. E061587 (Super.Ct.No. J254676 & J254677 & J254678 & J2546 79 & J254680 & J254681 & J254682)
OPINION

APPEAL from the Superior Court of San Bernardino County. Christopher B. Marshall, Judge. Reversed. Roni Keller, under appointment by th e Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Jean-Rene Basle, County Counsel, and Ad am E. Ebright, Depu ty County Counsel, for Plaintiff and Respondent.2 I STATEMENT OF THE CASE AND FACTS Appellant J.G., Sr. is the father of seven minors – J1 (now 10 years old), J2 (now 8 years old), J3 (now 7 years ol d), J4 (now 6 years old), D. (now 5 years old), J5 (now 3 years old), and J6 (now 2 years old). This dependency was original ly filed in the Orange County Superior Court. The children were removed due to a llegations of substance abuse. Mother and father failed to reunify, and the case was set for a Welfare and Institutions Code 1 section 366.26 hearing to determine a permanent placement plan. The children were originally placed in Or ange County. However, after the section 366.26 hearing was set, the ma ternal grandmother moved a nd the children were placed with her in San Bernardino Co unty. Therefore, the Orange County Court transferred the case to San Bernardino County prior to the section 366.26 h earing. The San Bernardino Court, however, concluded that it was in the be st interest of the children for the case to remain in Orange County and transferred the case back. Father now challenges the San Bernardi no County Court’s order transferring the case back to Orange County. Father has also filed a request for judicial notice of the opinion in a related appeal, case No. G04 9954 from the Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, Division Th ree. We reserved ruling on the request for consideration with father’s appeal. We he reby grant father’s request fo r judicial notice. For the

1 All statutory references are to th e Welfare and Institutions Code unless otherwise specified.3 reasons set forth below, we reverse the court’ s order transferring the case back to Orange County.
II STATEMENT OF FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND Father’s involvement with Orange Count y Children and Family Services (OCCFS) in this case began in August of 2012, afte r mother and the young est child, J6, tested positive for methamphetamine at the time of J6’s birth. Mother admitted to relapsing into drug use and stated that she had been us ing methamphetamine for approximately six months while she was pregnant with J6. Mo ther also had a long history with OCCFS, dating back to 2007, and had te sted positive for methamphetami ne when she gave birth to J3 in March of 2007. At the time of the detention, mother a nd all of the children were living with the maternal grandmother in a one-bedroom ap artment. Mother and the children were sleeping on the living-room floor. Father wa s living with a nearby relative and had never been the sole caretaker of the children. Father also had a long history of substance abuse dating back to 2003 and continued to a buse drugs despite having completed a drug diversion program in 2010. On December 10, 2012, at the disposition he aring, the juvenile court declared the children dependents of the court, granted cu stody to the social services director, and ordered reunification services for both parents. During the reunification period, father ma de little progress. The social workers were unable to contact him on a consistent ba sis, he failed to complete his parenting4 classes, and he missed several drug tests. At the May 29, 20 13, six-month review hearing, the court found that father’s re unification progress was minimal, terminated reunification services, and se t a section 366.26 hearing. The social worker prepared a secti on 366.26 report recomme nding termination of parental rights and the permanent plan of adop tion. At the time of the report, the children were placed with a maternal c ousin in Anaheim, California. The social worker concluded that all the children were adoptable. The social worker prepar ed an addendum report dated October 8, 2013, indicating that the placement with the maternal cousin would no longer be appropriate due to allegations of child abuse in the home. Th e social worker changed the recommendation from adoption to long- term foster care. On January 7, 2014, the so cial worker prepared an addendum report for section 366.26 hearing. The report changed the reco mmendation back to termination of parental rights and adoption. It had taken the matern al grandmother some time to find suitable housing on her own but she was able to do so. On Decemb er 11, 2013, the five older children were placed in the maternal gra ndmother’s new home in Hesperia in San Bernardino County. The younger two childr en, J5 and J6, were placed with foster parents in Dana Point, California. On February 28, 2014, the juvenile c ourt granted father’s motion for relative placement for all of the children and ordered that the two youngest child ren, J5 and J6, be placed in the home of the maternal grandmother with their siblings.5 On April 8, 2014, th e social worker prepared anothe r addendum report. The social worker reported that on Marc h 1, 2014, the younger two children were placed with their siblings in the maternal grandmother’s home. The social worker reported that it was unlikely that an adoptive home study would be approved for maternal grandmother and that, because the two younger children were recently placed in her home, the maternal grandmother would not be eligible for Kin- GAP financial assistance for at least six months. The social worker recommended that the court appoint the maternal grandmother as legal guardian. In an addendum report dated April 28, 2014, the social worker explained that maternal grandmother’s home study could not be approved because she had no means of financial support, she had not maintained stab le housing, and she ha d not shown that she could set appropriate boundaries with the birth parents. The social worker speculated that if maternal grandmother had mo re time to stabilize, she might be able to get through the home study process. The social worker also opined that because all the children were now in San Bernardino County, the case shoul d be transferred out so San Bernardino County would do the assessment. The cour t agreed. On April 28, 2014, the court ordered San Bernardino County to assess th e maternal grandmother for adoption and transferred the case. A San Bernardino County social work er prepared a transfer-in memorandum recommending that the case be transferred ba ck to Orange County. The memorandum stated that the Orange County court had violated inter-county transfer protocols by transferring the case after a section 366.2 6 hearing had already been set. The6 memorandum noted that it was not considered in the children’s best interests to accept a transfer when there is not a viable permanen t plan in place. A dditionally, the social worker cited section 17.1, subdivision (d), an d noted that there were some significant stability concerns with the placem ent with maternal grandmother. On May 22, 2014, the San Bernardino Co unty juvenile court held a transfer-in hearing and formally accepted the case. The court found th at there was a change in circumstances because the case was inappropri ately transferred out of Orange County while the section 366.26 hearin g was pending. The court se t a transfer-out hearing for the afternoon session of the same day. At the transfer-out hearing, the court disc losed that it had an op portunity to discuss the case with Judge Serbino in Orange C ounty who had ordered the transfer and confirmed that the case was still “in the midst of a .26 with an issu e as to the suitability and the permanence of a placement here with the maternal grandmother.” The court found that under section 17.1, subdivision (d ), and due to the improper transfer of the case, it was in the children’s best interest to return the matte r to Orange County.
III ANALYSIS Father’s sole contention on appeal is that the juvenile court erred in transferring the case out of San Bernardino and back to Orange County because the children’s place of residence is Orange County. Before transferring a case, the court must determine the children’s residence and “consider whether transfer of the case would be in the child’s best interest. The court7 may not transfer the case unless it determines th at the transfer will protect or further the child’s best interest.” (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 5.610.) An inter-county transfer of a dependency case is reviewed for abuse of discretion. ( In re J.C. (2002) 104 Cal.App.4th 984, 993.) Th e court, however, conducts a de novo review of the interpretation of relevant statutes and rules. ( In re R.D. (2008) 163 Cal.App.4th 679, 684-686.)
A. Residency of the Children Section 17.1 governs the determination of the children’s residence. Section 17.1 states, in pertinent part: “Unless otherwise provided under the provisi ons of this code, to the extent not in conflict with federal law, the residence of a minor person, or a nonm inor dependent, as described in subdivision (v) of Section 11400, shall be determined by the following rules: “(a) The residence of the parent with wh om a child maintains his or her place of abode or the residence of any individual w ho has been appointed legal guardian or the individual who has been given the care or cu stody by a court of competent jurisdiction, determines the residence of the child. “(b) Wherever in this section it is pr ovided that the resi dence of a child is determined by the residence of the person w ho has custody, ‘custody’ means the legal right to custody of the child un less that right is held jointl y by two or more persons, in which case ‘custody’ means the physical custody of the ch ild by one of the persons sharing the right to custody.

. . .8 “(d) If the residence of the child is not determined under subdivision (a), (b), (c), or (e), the county in which the child is living shall be deemed the county of residence, if and when the child has had a physical presence in the county for one year.” In this case, father argues that secti on 17.1, subdivision (a), applies. San Bernardino County Children and Family Serv ices (CFS), however argues that section 17.1, subdivision (d), applies. We agree with father. Here, maternal grandmother was given the care and custody of the children. On December 17, 2013, the social wo rker reported that the olde r five children were placed with maternal grandmother in Hesperia on December 11, 2013. The social worker, therefore, recommended that the matter be removed from the 15-day review calendar regarding placement. The cour t ordered as recommended. At the hearing on December 17, the court also stated that it had “read, co nsidered and accepted into evidence social services court report(s) dated 12-17-2013.” Thereafter, father moved to order the two younger siblings with maternal grandmother. At a hearing on February 28, 2014, the juvenile co urt granted father’s motion and ordered placement of J5 and J6 with the maternal grandmother. They were placed with maternal gra ndmother on March 1, 2014. 2

2 The foster parents of J5 and J6 appealed the court’s placement order. The Court of Appeal, Fourth District, Division Three, in case No. G049954, affirmed the court’s placement with maternal grandmot her. (Case No. G049954, p. 19.)9 Hence, maternal grandmother, who resides in San Bernardino, has been given “the care or custody by a court of competent jurisd iction” of the children. Therefore, the children’s place of residence under section 17 .1, subdivision (a) is San Bernardino. CFS argues that section 17.1, subdivision (a ) does not apply to this case. Instead, CFS argues that section 17.1, subdivision (d), applies. Since the children did not reside in San Bernardino for one year, it could not be deemed the county of residence. CFS’s argument, however, is unavaili ng because section 17.1, subd ivision (a), applies, as discussed above. Notwithstanding, CFS contends that gran dmother had not been given the care and custody of the children because “[t]he care a nd custody of the child ren remained vested with the juvenile court and was expressly de legated to OCCFS at the December 10, 2012 dispositional hearing, when the court declar ed the children dependents of the court and granted custody of the children to the social service directo r.” This argument is without merit. When a child is removed under secti on 361, the care, custody, control, and conduct of the child is to be under the supervision of a social worker. The social worker, however, does not take actual care and custo dy of the child, but ra ther supervises the child’s placement. The child may be a depend ent of the juvenile court, but care and custody of the child is exerci sed by their placement, whether by a relative caregiver, as in this case (see, §§ 361.3, subdiv ision (7)(B) and 362.04, subdiv ision (a)(1)), or by a foster caregiver (see, §§ 361.49, 362.04, subdivision (a)(1), and 366, subdivision (a)(1).)10 Orange County was not the children’s re sidence throughout th eir dependency, as suggested by CFS, just becau se the children were remove d at disposition in Orange County. If this were the case, there would ne ver be any need to transfer cases from one county to another. In this case, the court placed the children in th e maternal grandmother’s care. She was given both the care and custody of the child ren. Therefore, section 17.1, subdivision (a), applies. Because the ma ternal grandmother resides in San Bernardino with the children, the residence of the children is San Bernardino, not Orange County.
B. Best Interest of the Children Notwithstanding, even if section 17.1, s ubdivision (d), applies as CFS suggests, the San Bernardino County Juveni le Court abused its discretion in entering the transferout order and returning the case to Orange Co unty. “This is because the court failed to take account of the overarching principle of the best interests of the child[ren].” ( In re
R.D. , supra , 163 Cal.App.4th at p. 685.)
In In re R.D. , Los Angeles County Department of Children and Family Services (DCFS) originally had jurisdic tion of the juvenile dependency case wherein R.D. and the natural mother resided in Los Angeles County. R.D. was placed with a maternal relative in San Bernardino County. Th e Los Angeles Juvenile Court entered orders to transfer the supervision of the case to the San Bernardino County Departme nt of Children’s Services. The San Bernardino County Cour t accepted the transfer and then transferred the matter back to Los Angeles. DC FS appealed the order. ( In re R.D. , supra , 163 Cal.App.4th at p. 681.)11 In that case, we stated th at even if R.D.’s legal residence was in Los Angeles County, “the San Bernardino County Juvenile Court acted improperly, because it wholly disregarded, and made no finding concerning , the overarching principle of the best interests of the child. At a tr ansfer-out hearing, the transferring court is required to make findings not only as to the child’s residence, but also as to whether th e transfer is in the child’s best interests.” ( In re R.D. , supra , 163 Cal.App.4th at p. 687.)
In In re R.D. , supra, 163 Cal.App.4th 679, we found that because both the legal guardian and the child actually lived in San Bernardino County and the placement required ongoing supervision, “‘ the focus of the proceedings should have been which county could best moni tor the [child’s] well-being and th e suitability of [his] placement on a monthly basis, as well as keep tabs on [his] academic progress and other needs.’ [Citation.] . . . The only reasonable conclusion is that the child’s best interests are served by having the case supervised in San Bernardino County.” ( Id. at pp. 687-688.) Here, the San Bernardino Juvenile Court stated that the case “is still in the midst of a .26 with an issue as to the suitability and the permanence of a placement here with the maternal grandmother.” Therefore, the court found that “it is in the best interest of these children that the matter go back to Orange County and that the Court will find it promotes the best interest of the child ren to do so.” We disagree. Just as in In re R.D. , supra , 163 Cal.App.4th 679, we fail to see how the supervision of the maternal grandmother and the children, who reside in Hesperia, would be best done by a social worker in Orange County, and not by a social worker in San Bernardino County. A social worker char ged with supervising a placement must, as12 frequently as possible, visit a placement a nd make recommendations of local services available for support. A local social worker is far more likely an d able to fulfill these duties as opposed to a social worker who wo rks in Orange County. Because the children are residing in San Bernardino County, “the only reasonable conclusion is that the child[ren]’s best interests are served by ha ving the case supervised in San Bernardino County.” ( Id. at p. 688.)
IV DISPOSITION The juvenile court’s order transferring this matter to Orange County is reversed. The case is remanded to the San Bernardino J uvenile Court to accept the transfer-in of this case from Orange County.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS

McKINSTER J.
We concur:

RAMIREZ P. J.

CODRINGTON J.