Source: https://www.advokids.org/legal-tools/information-for-relatives-2/
Timestamp: 2017-10-23 20:26:25
Document Index: 712411265

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 319', '§ 309', '§ 309', '§ 362', '§ 309', '§ 5', '§ 361', '§ 361', '§ 309', '§ 361', '§ 361']

Information For Relatives and NREFM | Advokids: A Legal Resource for California Foster Children and Their Advocates
When a child is detained by the county social services agency, the court may order that the child be placed in the assessed home of a relative or a non relative extended family member (NREFM).
"Relative" - the Legal Definition
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.
Welfare and Institutions Code § 319(f)(2)
This term includes a parent, sibling, grandparent, aunt, uncle, nephew, niece, great-grandparent, great-aunt or great uncle (grandparents’ sibling), first cousin, great-great grandparent, great-great-aunt or great great uncle (great-grandparents’ sibling), first cousin once removed (parent’s first cousin), and great-great-great-grandparent; a step-parent or step-sibling; and the spouse or domestic partner of any of the people described above, even if the marriage or partnership was terminated by death or dissolution.
California Rule of Court rule 5.502(34)
“Relative”: The Legal Definition
"Sibling" - The Legal Definition
County Agencies Have a Legal Obligation to Identify, Locate, and Investigate Relatives
County Agencies Have an Obligation to Send Notice to Relatives
The Court Must Inquire About Relatives And Review At Detention And Disposition Hearings
Non-Relative Extended Family Member (NREFM): The Legal Definition
Relatives and NREFMs Can Step Forward and Identify Themselves
Relatives and NREFMs Who Are Denied Approval to Provide Foster Care May Request a State Hearing
Relatives’ Have Right to Participate in Dependency Hearings
Relatives of The Child Have The Right to Submit Information About The Child to The Court At Any Time (JV-285)
Relatives With Placement Preference
The Key Placement Consideration Is The Best Interest Of The Child
After Disposition And During The Reunification Period
End Of Reunification Efforts
Current Caregiver Preference
“As used in this section ‘sibling’ means a person related to the identified child by blood, adoption, or affinity through a common legal or biological parent.”
Welfare and Institutions Code §§ 309(e)(1), 362.1(c), 16002(g)
County Agencies Have a Legal Obligation to Identify, Locate and Investigate Relatives and Siblings
Within 30 days of a child’s removal from the home of his or her parent or guardian, if the child is in, or at risk of, entering foster care, the social worker or probation officer must use due diligence in conducting an investigation to identify, and locate all the child’s adult relatives. This policy underscores the importance of relative participation and support in all aspects of a child’s life. The social worker or probation officer is not required to notify a relative whose personal history of family or domestic violence would make notification inappropriate.
Welfare & Institutions Code § 309(e), California Rule of Court 5.637
County Agencies Have a Legal Obligation to Send Notice to Relatives and Siblings
Within 30 days of removal of the child, the county social worker shall provide written notification and shall also, whenever appropriate, provide oral notification, in person or by telephone, to relatives of all the following information:
Child has been removed.
How to become an approved relative placement.
Information about providing care for the child while the family receives reunification services with the goal of returning the child to the parent or guardian, how to become a foster family home or approved relative or non-relative extended family member.
A copy of Relative Information (Form JV-285) (or Información del pariente, JV-285S), with the county and address of the court, the child’s name and date of birth, and the case number already entered in the appropriate caption boxes by the social worker.
A “nonrelative extended family member” is defined as an adult caregiver who has an established familial relationship with a relative of the child or a familial or mentoring relationship with the child. The county welfare department shall verify the existence of a relationship through interviews with the parent and child or with one or more third parties. The parties may include relatives of the child, teachers, medical professionals, clergy, neighbors, and family friends.
Welfare & Institutions Code §§ 362.7, 361.3
Relatives and NREFM May Step Forward and Identify Themselves
If an able and willing relative, or NREFM, is available and requests temporary placement of the child pending the detention hearing, the county welfare department shall initiate an assessment of the relative’s or nonrelative extended family member’s suitability.
The standards used to determine suitability shall be the same standards set forth in the regulations for the licensing of foster family homes.
Welfare & Institutions Code § 309(d)
Relatives and NREFM Who are Denied Approval to Provide Foster Care May Request a State Hearing
A relative or non-relative extended family member (NREFM) who seeks assessment and approval to provide care to a dependent minor or nonminor dependent and who experiences an adverse decision (aka “denial”) must be provided with a state hearing.
All County Letter ACL 12-71
The relative or NREFM did not complete required orientation and/or training. (For more information, including calendaring, scheduling and confidentiality issues see
All County Letter ACT 13-27
A copy of the NA 1271 form can also be downloaded in English, Spanish and additional languages here. The fillable areas on the forms have limited space to enter text, so be mindful not to enter too much text and disrupt formatting on the second page. If more room is needed, please use an additional page and attach to the Notice.
Please note that the right to a state hearing does not apply to placement decisions. An approved relative or NREFM who is denied placement is afforded a grievance review hearing. See Advokids Grievance Review page.
Relatives Have the Right to Participate in Dependency Hearings
The Juvenile Court must control all juvenile dependency proceedings by quickly and effectively ascertaining the jurisdictional facts and all information relevant to the present condition and welfare of the child.
The court may permit relatives of the child to:
California Rules of Court 5.534(a), (f)(1)
Relatives of the Child Have the Right to Submit Information About the Child to the Court At Any Time.
The Relative Information Form (Form JV-285) (or Información del pariente, JV-285S) is a simple form that helps relatives and NREFMs organize detailed information about the child and communicate with the court. As NREFM or relative, you know about the child's current circumstances and needs, and should provide any information or concerns you may have to the juvenile court. The goal is to enable the judge to make informed decisions about the child and reach the best outcome regarding the disposition of the child. The form can include information about your relationship with the child, the child’s education or medical needs, and any other information that might be helpful to the court. The JV-285 form may be submitted at any time during the court process.
If possible, attach letters from doctors, teachers, or other professionals to support your concerns. If you have attachments, be sure to check the box on item 12, indicate the total number of pages attached, and include the date and the case number. Label each attachment page “Attachment to JV-285, Date, Case Number.”
Submit the original JV-285 with 8 copies of the form (each form should have a photo on it) to the Juvenile Court Clerk’s Office at least five calendar days before the hearing (or seven days if filing by mail). The County Clerk will then distribute, or "serve" your JV-285 to all of the relevant people involved in the case. California Rules of Court § 5.534 . Some clerk offices will copy the JV-285 for you, but we recommend coming prepared with all 8 copies just in case.
When you file your JV-285, you are also developing a relationship with your juvenile court judge and all other parties involved with the case. Your JV-285 will become a part of the court file and will reflect your dedication and commitment to the child.
You may use JV-287 in order to keep confidential any contact information listed on the JV-285.
Relatives With Placement Preference: The Agency and the Court Have a Duty to Assess Any Relatives Who Come Forward Prior to Disposition To Determine if Placement Is Appropriate
If a relative with preference seeks placement under section 361.3 prior to the disposition hearing, the social services agency must consider and investigate the request. (In re R.T. (2015) 232 Cal.App.4th 1284, 1297.) Request for placement made by a relative of the child shall be given preferential consideration. “Preferential consideration’ means that the relative seeking placement shall be the first placement to be considered and investigated.”
Welfare and Institutions Code § 361.3(c)(1)
“Only the following relatives shall be given preferential consideration for placement of the child: an adult who is a grandparent, aunt, uncle or sibling of the child [emphasis added].”
Welfare & Institutions Code § 361.3(c)(2)
County agencies are required to complete the approval process on a relative who is a grandparent, aunt, uncle or adult sibling, i.e. relatives with preference, within 30 days of their request for approval, or prior to the dispositional hearing, whichever is sooner.
All County Letter ACL 05-13
The relative placement preference does not “operate as an evidentiary presumption in favor of placement with [relatives] that would overcome the juvenile court’s duty to determine the best interests of the child… The relative placement preference is not a relative placement guarantee[emphasis added].”(In re Joseph T. (2008) 163 Cal.App.4th 787.)
Welfare and Institutions Code section 361.3, subdivision (a) sets forth a number of factors the agency and the court must consider in deciding to place the child with a relative.
"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:
(2) The wishes of the parent, the relative and the child, if appropriate.
(6) The nature and duration of the relationship between the child and the relative, and the relative’s desire to care for the child.
(8) (A) The safety of the relative’s home which must first be approved per WIC § 309 (d).(i.e. an assessment which includes the ability of the relative to meet the child’s needs, a home inspection, and a criminal record check, and the relative home shall meet the same standards and regulations set forth for the licensing a of foster family homes.)"
While the social services agency is responsible for making the initial assessment of whether a child should be placed with a relative, both the county social worker and the court must consider whether the proposed relative placement is appropriate. If there is an issue concerning a proposed relative placement the juvenile court must use its independent judgement in making its decision. It may not just rely on the agency’s recommendation. (Cesar V. v Superior Court (2001) 91 Cal.App.4th 1023, 1033.)
It is no coincidence that the child’s best interests are listed as the first factor to be considered in assessing a proposed relative placement. The fundamental duty of the juvenile court throughout dependency proceedings is to determine what is in the best interests of the child.
Whenever the court contemplates a placement or a change in placement, the court must consider whether that placement would be in the child’s best interest. (In re Stephanie M. (1994) 7 Cal.4th 295, 321; see also Alicia B. Superior Court (2004) 116 Cal.App.4th 856, 862-863 [“The linchpin of a section 361.3 analysis is whether a placement with a relative is in the best interests of the minor.”]; In re Jessica G. (1997) 58 Cal.App.4th 1, 8 [best interest is “implied throughout dependency law”]; In re Tabatha G, (1996) 45 Cal.App.4th 1150, 1165 [best interest is “inherent in the legislative procedure”]; In re Robert L. (1993) 21 Cal.App.4th 1057, 1068 [“The child’s best interest must be the linchpin of the court’s analysis under section 361.3”].)
After Disposition and During the Reunification Period: the Relative Placement Preference Applies Only When A New Placement is Necessary
The plain language of the statute requires that specified relatives, i.e. only grandparents, aunts, uncles, adult siblings only, be given preferential consideration for placement “in any case in which the child is removed from the physical custody of his or her parents.”
Welfare and Institutions Code § 361.3(a)
Section 361.3 further specifies that subsequent to the disposition hearing, whenever a new placement must be made, consideration shall again be given to relatives with preference 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 social worker shall consider “whether the relative has established and maintained a relationship with the child.”
Welfare and Institutions Code § 361.3(d) (emphasis added)
There is a divergence of view in the case law as follows:
The Majority View: After Disposition The Child’s Placement Should Not be Changed Unless Necessary Because of the Risk of Emotional Damage When A Child’s Primary Attachment is Disrupted.
The majority of the cases have held that the relative placement preference applies up to and at the child’s initial disposition hearing, but “does not arise again until a new placement of the child must be made.” (In re N.V. (2010) 189 Cal.App4th 25, 31; In re Lauren R. (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 841, 854). In situations where a relative does not come forward until after disposition, i.e., after a child has been placed with a foster parent or other caregiver, several California courts have held that the maintenance of existing attachment to a primary caregiver is an important consideration in determining the best interests of the child. These cases rely on the psychological concept of attachment and the neuroscience of early child development, both of which stress the important role of consistent relationships in young children’s brain development.=
In In re Sarah S the court state that “[i]t would be grossly unfair and unjust to Sarah to have her bear the detrimental consequences of replacement…[Sarah] is innocent of all that has happened and deserves only what is in her best interests irrespective of the conduct of others.” (In re Sarah S.(1996) 43 Cal.App.4th 274, 287).
“Secure and stable attachments with a primary caregiver form the foundation for a child’s social, emotional, and cognitive development. Children who develop secure attachments show a greater capacity for self-regulation, effective social interactions, self-reliance, and adaptive coping skills later in life…”
“Healthy development depends on the quality and reliability of a young child’s relationship with the important people in his or her life, both within and outside the family. Even the development of a child’s brain architecture depends on the establishment of these relationships.”
National Scientific Council on the Developing Child, Young Children Develop in an Environment of Relationships: Working Paper No. 1. Center for the Developing Child, Harvard University, 2004, p.1.
The Minority View: The Court May Order Placement With A Relative During the Reunification Period So Long As It Is In The Childs Best Interests to Do So
Some cases have held that the court may order placement with a relative post-disposition and during the reunification period if it is in the child’s best interests to do so, regardless of whether a new placement for the child is needed.
In Joseph T. the court was divided on whether the relative placement preference only applies after disposition if a placement change is necessary. The majority held that the relative placement preference applies throughout the reunification period, regardless of whether a new placement is necessary or is otherwise being considered by the dependency court. (In re Joseph T 163 Cal.App.4th 787, 797-798.) However the majority still recognized that placement with a relative seeking placement is not automatic, is not guaranteed, and must still be in the best interests of the child. (Id. at 798.) The dissenting opinion concluded that section 361.3 (d) specifically applies to placement changes after disposition and to interpret the statute as applying throughout the entire reunification period would render subdivision (d) meaningless and superfluous, (Id. at 799.) This dissenting justice as also “concerned that a contrary interpretation of the statute will result in increased burdens on the child welfare agencies, who will be forced to expend resources on assessments throughout the reunification period, even when the child remains for a substantial period of time in a stable foster care placement.”
In Baby Girl D, the issue on appeal was whether relatives who came forward after parental reunification efforts had failed and the court had selected adoption as the permanent plan were entitled to a placement preference for adoption. Baby Girl D. did not hold that the relative preference applies throughout the reunification period regardless of whether a new placement is necessary. In re Baby Girl D. (1989) 108 Cal.App.3d 1489, 1492-93.
Consequently, Advokids believes that it does not support the Joseph T. majority’s conclusion to the contrary.
End of Reunification Efforts: The Relative Placement Preference Ends When Reunification Efforts End, Except When a Placement Change is Necessary or the Agency has Failed or Refused to Assess Relatives Who Sought Placement Before the Disposition Hearing
Current Caregiver Preference: Once Reunification Services Have Been terminated, The Current Caretaker is the Preferred Adoptive Placement.
The legislature enacted section 366.26 (n) to limit removals of children from current caregivers who have demonstrated an interest in adopting the child and have cared for the child for at least six months. If the caregiver qualifies for the prospective adoptive parent status the agency may not remove the child from the home of a current caregiver without the notice and opportunity to object to the removal required by subdivision (n).
The intent was and is to protect the stability and best interests of vulnerable children who are already in prospective adoptive homes when parental rights are terminated.