Ark. Code Ann. » Title 9 Chapter 27
Arkansas Code Annotated

Ark. Code Ann. § 9-27-355 (2026)

Placement of juveniles

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section JustiaArk. Code CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
  1. The court shall not specify a particular provider for placement of a foster child.
      1. When the Department of Human Services takes custody of a juvenile under § 12-18-1001, or when the court determines that a juvenile shall be removed from his or her home under this subchapter, the department shall conduct an immediate assessment to locate:
        1. A noncustodial parent of the juvenile;
        2. Recommended relatives of the juvenile, including each grandparent of the juvenile, and all parents of the juvenile's sibling if the parent has custody of the sibling; and
        3. Fictive kin identified by the juvenile as one (1) or more persons who play or have a significant positive role in his or her life.
        1. If there is a safety issue identified from a Child Maltreatment Central Registry check or criminal background check, the department is not required to provide further assessment or notice to the persons identified under subdivision (b)(1)(A) of this section.
        2. If there is not a safety issue identified in a Child Maltreatment Central Registry check or criminal background check regarding all the persons identified under subdivision (b)(1)(A) of this section, the department shall provide in writing to the persons identified the following notice:
          1. A statement saying that the juvenile has been or is being removed from his or her parent;
          2. An explanation concerning how to participate and be considered for care, placement, and visitation with the juvenile;
          3. Information needed for a child welfare safety check and home study, if the person is interested in placement;
          4. Information about provisional relative foster care, fictive kin, and other supportive benefits available through the department;
          5. A statement saying that failure to timely respond may result in the loss of opportunities to be involved in the care, placement, and visitation with the juvenile; and
          6. The name, phone number, email address, and physical address of the caseworker and supervisor assigned to the case.
      3. If the court has not transferred custody to a noncustodial parent, relative, or other individual, or the department has not placed the juvenile in provisional relative placement or fictive kin placement, the department shall continue its assessment under subdivisions (b)(1)(A) and (B) of this section throughout the case.
      4. The department shall provide upon request of the court, parties to the proceeding, or counsel for the parties to the proceeding a record of the efforts made to locate the noncustodial parent, relatives, fictive kin, or other persons identified under subdivision (b)(1)(A) of this section and the results of the assessment, including the following information concerning the identified person:
        1. Name;
        2. Last known address and phone number;
        3. The appropriateness of placement based on the department's assessment of the person; and
        4. Other identifying or relevant information to the extent known by the department.
        1. A relative or fictive kin identified by the department under subdivision (b)(1)(A) of this section shall be given preferential consideration for placement if the relative or fictive kin meets all relevant protective standards and it is in the best interest of the juvenile to be placed with the relative or fictive kin.
        2. In all placements, preferential consideration for a relative or fictive kin shall be given at all stages of the case.
        3. If the court denies placement with a relative or fictive kin, the court shall make specific findings of fact in writing regarding the considerations given to the relative or fictive kin and the reasons the placement was denied.
        4. The court shall not base its decision to place the juvenile solely upon the consideration of the relationship formed between the juvenile and a foster parent.
      6. The court may transfer custody to any relative or any other person recommended by the department, the parent, or any party upon review of a home study, including criminal background and child maltreatment reports, and a finding that custody is in the best interest of the child.
    2. Placement or custody of a juvenile in the home of a relative, fictive kin, or other person shall not relieve the department of its responsibility to actively implement the goal of the case.
      1. The juvenile shall remain in a licensed or approved foster home, shelter, or facility or an exempt child welfare agency as defined under § 9-28-402 until the home is opened as a regular foster home, as a provisional foster home if the person is a relative to one (1) of the children in the sibling group, including step-siblings, or the court grants custody of the juvenile to the relative, fictive kin, or other person after a written approved home study is presented to the court.
      2. For placement only with a relative or fictive kin:
        1. The juvenile and the juvenile's siblings or step-siblings may be placed in the home of a relative or fictive kin on a provisional basis for up to six (6) months pending the relative or fictive kin's home being opened as a regular foster home;
        2. If the relative or fictive kin opts to have his or her home opened as a provisional foster home, the relative or fictive kin shall not be paid a board payment until the relative or fictive kin meets all of the requirements and his or her home is opened as a regular foster home;
        3. Until the relative or fictive kin's home is opened as a regular foster home, the relative or fictive kin may:
          1. Apply for and receive benefits that the relative or fictive kin may be entitled to due to the placement of the juvenile in the home, such as benefits under the Transitional Employment Assistance Program, § 20-76-401, and the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP); and
          2. Receive child support or any federal benefits paid on behalf of the juvenile in the relative or fictive kin's home; and
        4. If the relative or fictive kin's home is not fully licensed as a foster home after six (6) months of the placement of the juvenile and the siblings or step-siblings in the home:
          1. The department shall remove the juvenile and any of the siblings or step-siblings from the relative or fictive kin's home and close the relative or fictive kin's provisional foster home; or
          2. The court shall remove custody from the department and grant custody of the juvenile to the relative or fictive kin subject to the limitations outlined in subdivision (b)(4) of this section.
    4. If the court grants custody of the juvenile and any siblings or step-siblings to the relative, fictive kin, or other person:
        1. The juvenile and any siblings or step-siblings shall not be placed back in the custody of the department while remaining in the home of the relative, fictive kin, or other person.
        2. The juvenile and any siblings or step-siblings shall not be removed from the custody of the relative, fictive kin, or other person, placed in the custody of the department, and then remain or be returned to the home of the relative, fictive kin, or other person while remaining in the custody of the department;
      2. The relative, fictive kin, or other person shall not receive any financial assistance, including board payments, from the department, except for financial assistance for which the relative, fictive kin, or other person has applied and for which the relative, fictive kin, or other person qualifies under the program guidelines, such as the Transitional Employment Assistance Program, § 20-76-401, food stamps, Medicaid, and the federal adoption subsidy; and
      3. The department shall not be ordered to pay the equivalent of board payments, adoption subsidies, or guardianship subsidies to the relative, fictive kin, or other person as reasonable efforts to prevent removal of custody from the relative, fictive kin, or other person.
      1. The court may order a juvenile who is in the custody of the department to be placed in a trial home placement with a parent of the juvenile or the person from whom custody of the juvenile was removed for a period of:
        1. No longer than sixty (60) days; or
        2. More than sixty (60) days but no longer than one hundred eighty (180) days with the consent of the department.
      2. The department may place a juvenile who is in its custody in a trial home placement with a parent of the juvenile or the person from whom custody of the juvenile was removed for no longer than one hundred eighty (180) days.
      3. A trial home placement with a parent who did not have custody of the juvenile at the time of the removal of the juvenile and placement into the custody of the department may occur only after the court or the department determines that:
        1. The trial home placement is in the best interest of the juvenile;
        2. The noncustodial parent does not have a restriction on contact with the juvenile; and
        3. There is no safety concern with the trial home placement after reviewing:
          1. The criminal background of the noncustodial parent;
          2. The home of the noncustodial parent and each person in the home of the noncustodial parent; and
          3. Other information in the records of the department, including without limitation records concerning foster care, child maltreatment, protective services, and supportive services.
      1. At every stage of the case, the court shall consider the least restrictive placement for the juvenile and assess safety concerns that prevent either a trial home placement or the juvenile from being returned to or placed in the custody of the parent of the juvenile.
      2. The court shall detail the safety concerns in subdivision (c)(2)(A) of this section in its written order.
      3. Failure to complete a case plan is not a sufficient reason alone to deny the placement of the juvenile in the home of a parent of the juvenile.
      4. A trial home placement may be made with a parent of the juvenile or the person from whom custody of the juvenile was removed.
    3. At the end of the trial home placement:
      1. The court shall place custody of the juvenile with the parent of the juvenile or the person from whom custody of the juvenile was removed; or
      2. The department shall return the juvenile to a licensed or approved foster home, shelter, or facility or an exempt child welfare agency as defined in § 9-28-402.
  4. When a juvenile leaves the custody of the department and the court grants custody to the parent or another person, the department is no longer legal custodian of the juvenile, even if the juvenile division of circuit court retains jurisdiction.

History. Acts 2003, No. 1319, § 26; 2005, No. 874, § 1; 2007, No. 587, §§ 26, 27; 2011, No. 591, § 7; 2013, No. 478, § 1; 2013, No. 1055, §§ 13, 21; 2017, No. 1116, § 1; 2019, No. 541, § 9.

Amendments. The 2005 amendment inserted present (a); redesignated former (a)(1) and (b)-(d) as present (b)(1)(A) and (c)-(e); added (b)(1)(B); inserted “or other person” throughout present (c); rewrote (c)(3); redesignated former (c)(4) as present (c)(4)(A); in present (c)(4)(A), deleted “relative's” following “until the” and inserted “as a provisional foster home if the person is a relative” and “or person”; and added (c)(4)(B).

The 2007 amendment added (c)(5)(A)(ii) and made related changes; and substituted “sixty (60)” for “thirty (30)” twice in (d).

The 2011 amendment deleted former (a), (b)(1), and (b)(3) and redesignated former (b)(2) as (a); redesignated former (c) through (e) as (b) through (d); and, in (b)(1), substituted “Department of Human Services” for “department”; deleted former (b)(3) and redesignated the remaining subdivisions accordingly; in (b)(3)(A), substituted “9-28-402(12)” for “9-28-402”, and inserted “to one of the children in the sibling group, including step-siblings”; inserted “and the juvenile's siblings or step-siblings” in (b)(3)(B)(i); inserted “and the siblings or step-siblings” in (b)(3)(B)(iv); inserted “and any of the siblings or step-siblings” in (b)(3)(B)(iv) (a) , (b)(4), (b)(4)(A)(i) and (ii); substituted “subdivision (b)(4)” for “subdivision (c)(5)” in (b)(3)(B)(iv) (b) ; and inserted “or the person from whom custody was removed” in (c)(1) and (c)(2).

The 2013 amendment by No. 478 inserted “or fictive kin” following “relative” throughout the section; subdivided part of (b)(3)(B)(iii) as (b)(3)(B)(iii) (a) ; substituted “Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP)” for “food stamps” in (b)(3)(B)(iii) (a); and added (b)(3)(B)(iii) (b)

The 2013 amendment by No. 1055, in (b)(3)(B)(iii), substituted “the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP)” for “food stamps” in (a) and added (b) ; and inserted “or guardianship subsidies” in (b)(4)(C).

The 2017 amendment rewrote (b)(1); inserted “fictive kin” in (b)(2); in (b)(3)(A), substituted “relative, fictive kin, or other person” for “relative or person”; inserted “fictive kin” throughout (b)(4); inserted the second occurrence of “or other person” in (b)(4)(B); added “or other person” in (b)(4)(C); rewrote (c)(1); inserted present (c)(2); redesignated former (c)(2) as (c)(3); in (c)(3), substituted “At the end of the trial placement” for “At the end of sixty (60) days”; and made stylistic changes.

The 2019 amendment redesignated and rewrote former (c)(1) as (c)(1)(A); added (c)(1)(B) and (c)(1)(C); substituted “alone” for “in and of itself” in (c)(2)(C); rewrote (c)(3); and made stylistic changes.

Research References

U. Ark. Little Rock L. Rev.

Survey of Legislation, 2003 Arkansas General Assembly, Family Law, Juvenile Code, 26 U. Ark. Little Rock L. Rev. 417.

Survey of Legislation, 2005 Arkansas General Assembly, Family Law, 28 U. Ark. Little Rock L. Rev. 357.

Case Notes

Placement With Relatives.

Circuit court properly terminated a mother's parental rights to her child because the statutory provision for preferential consideration of placement with relatives was not found in the termination statute, and that preference was not relevant when considering termination of parental rights. Donley v. Ark. Dep't of Human Servs., 2014 Ark. App. 335 (2014).

Circuit court clearly erred in denying a father's motion to place a child with the child's paternal uncle and the uncle's wife, who were stationed in Germany, where a home study did not show anything suggesting that placement with the relatives was not in the child's best interests or that the relatives were unfit, it failed to conduct a mandatory review hearing required by § 9-27-337, and thus it had inappropriately ignored the statutory preference for relative placement in subdivision (b)(1) of this section and § 9-28-105. Ellis v. Ark. Dep't of Human Servs., 2016 Ark. 441, 505 S.W.3d 678 (2016).

Ad litem's argument that the statutory preference for placement with relatives applies only to the initial placement was clearly wrong. Nowhere in subdivision (b)(1) of this section is there a limit to “initial placement.” To the extent that the Court of Appeals has said this in Davis v. Ark. Dep't of Human Servs., 2010 Ark. App. 469, 375 S.W.3d 721, and other cases, the Court of Appeals is overruled. Ellis v. Ark. Dep't of Human Servs., 2016 Ark. 441, 505 S.W.3d 678 (2016).

Circuit court did not err in terminating a father's parental rights on the ground that there was an available and appropriate relative placement with the father's mother where placement with the mother was considered on multiple occasions, but was denied because she did not have any income, relied solely on another son's disability benefits, and wanted to maintain contact between the child and the father. Rosenbaum v. Ark. Dep't of Human Servs., 2017 Ark. App. 680, 537 S.W.3d 282 (2017).

Decision to forego a relative-placement option with the Indiana grandparents in favor of terminating the mother's parental rights was clearly erroneous because the grandparents wanted to be involved in the case; the grandparents consistently attempted to communicate with some Arkansas authority about the children; the Department of Human Services did not fulfill its duty under this section to try to locate the grandparents and communicate with them; the grandparents loved their grandchildren, had visited them, provided them gifts, wished to keep them in the family, and doggedly pursued that course; and the grandparents had a longstanding relationship with all four of the mother's children and stated that they would facilitate visits between all the children. Clark v. Ark. Dep't of Human Servs., 2019 Ark. App. 223, 575 S.W.3d 578 (2019).

In a dependency-neglect case, children were not entitled to reversal of an order granting permanent custody to their paternal uncle and aunt, where children argued instead for termination of parental rights and adoption. The circuit court did make a finding that termination of parental rights was not in the children's best interest; further, there is no remedy provided by the legislature for lack of a home study in the home-study requirement set forth in this section, and the evidence relied on by the children—that their aunt and uncle were stellar and that the children were thriving there—negated their argument that without a home study, the evidence was insufficient to support custody being placed with the aunt and uncle. Minor Children v. Ark. Dep't of Human Servs., 2019 Ark. App. 588, 589 S.W.3d 495 (2019).

Preservation of Argument.

To the extent that the father argued that his mother should have been given preference in place of termination of parental rights, the father failed to appeal from the order setting the goal of the case to termination of parental rights and adoption. Edwards v. Ark. Dep't of Human Servs., 2016 Ark. App. 37, 480 S.W.3d 215 (2016).

Cited: Andrews v. Ark. Dep't of Human Servs., 2012 Ark. App. 22, 388 S.W.3d 63 (2012).

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 19 cases (3 in the last 5 years), 1989–2024 · leading case: Ellis v. Arkansas Dep't of Human Servs., 2016 Ark. 441 (Ark. 2016).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Ellis v. Arkansas Dep't of Human Servs., 2016 Ark. 441 (Ark. 2016). · cites it 20× “See Ark. Code Ann. § 9-27-355 (b)(1); see also Ark.”
Ingle v. Arkansas Dep't of Human Servs., 2014 Ark. 471 (Ark. 2014). · cites it 4× “See Ark. Code Ann. § 9-27-355 . The dissent attempts to rewrite Ingle I, to state that we directed the circuit court to close the dependency neglect case.”
Clark v. Ark. Dep't of Human Servs., 575 S.W.3d 578 (Ark. Ct. App. 2019). · cites it 2× “Ark. Code Ann. § 9-27-355 (b)(1)(A)(ii)-(iii), (B)(ii) (a) - (c) (Supp.”
Amanda Borah & Steven Walls v. Arkansas Dep't of Human Servs. & Minor Child, 2020 Ark. App. 491 (Ark. Ct. App. 2020). · cites it 2× “Ark. Code Ann. § 9-27-355 (b)(1)(A)(ii)– (iii), (B)(ii)(a)–(c) (Supp.”
Arkansas Dep't of Human Servs. v. Circuit Court, 214 S.W.3d 856 (Ark. 2005). · cites it 2× “See generally Ark. Code Ann. § 9-27-355 (Supp. 2005); see also Arkansas Dep’t of Human Servs.”
Davis v. Arkansas Dep't of Human Servs., 375 S.W.3d 721 (Ark. Ct. App. 2010). · cites it 2× “Section 9-27-355 concerns an initial placement of a juvenile after that juvenile is taken into DHS custody, not a placement when termination of rights has been requested.”
Edwards v. Arkansas Dep't of Human Servs., 2016 Ark. App. 37 (Ark. Ct. App. 2016). “§ 9-27-355. Appellant further argues that termination was not in A.”
Andrews v. Arkansas Dep't of Human Servs., 388 S.W.3d 63 (Ark. Ct. App. 2012). · cites it 2× “Arkansas Code Annotated section 9-27-355(c)(1) (Repl.2009) provides that “a relative of a juvenile placed in the custody of the department shall be given preferential consideration for placement if the relative caregiver meets all relevant child protection standards and it is in…”
Davis-Lewallen v. Clegg, 378 S.W.3d 185 (Ark. Ct. App. 2010). · cites it 6× “According to Arkansas Code Annotated section 9-27-355, the preference afforded to relatives is honored only if the court should find that placement with the relative is in the child’s best interest.”
Ellis v. Arkansas Dep't of Human Servs., 2016 Ark. App. 318 (Ark. Ct. App. 2016). · cites it 12× “” Ark. Code Ann. § 9-27-355 (b)(1) (Repl. 2015).”
Donley v. Ark. Dep't of Human Servs., 2014 Ark. App. 335 (Ark. Ct. App. 2014). · cites it 4× “This court rejected this argument, holding as follows: Arkansas Code Annotated sections 9-27-355(b)(1) and 9-28-105, which concern the placement of juveniles by DHS, both state that a relative of the juvenile shall be given preferential consideration for placement if the…”
Isbell v. Ark. Dep't of Human Servs., 573 S.W.3d 19 (Ark. Ct. App. 2019). · cites it 2× “§ 9-27-302 (2)(A) (Repl. 2015). Also, relative placement should be given preferential consideration when the relative caregiver meets all relevant child-protection standards and it is in the best interest of the child.”
Show all 19 citing cases →
— Ark. Code Ann. § 9-27-355(b)(1) — 4 cases
Ellis v. Arkansas Dep't of Human Servs., 2016 Ark. 441 (Ark. 2016). “See Ark. Code Ann. § 9-27-355 (b)(1); see also Ark.”
Ellis v. Arkansas Dep't of Human Servs., 2016 Ark. App. 318 (Ark. Ct. App. 2016). “” Ark. Code Ann. § 9-27-355 (b)(1) (Repl. 2015).”
Donley v. Ark. Dep't of Human Servs., 2014 Ark. App. 335 (Ark. Ct. App. 2014). “This court rejected this argument, holding as follows: Arkansas Code Annotated sections 9-27-355(b)(1) and 9-28-105, which concern the placement of juveniles by DHS, both state that a relative of the juvenile shall be given preferential consideration for placement if the…”
Rosenbaum v. Arkansas Dep't of Human Servs., 537 S.W.3d 282 (Ark. Ct. App. 2017).
— Ark. Code Ann. § 9-27-355(c)(1) — 1 case
Andrews v. Arkansas Dep't of Human Servs., 388 S.W.3d 63 (Ark. Ct. App. 2012). “Arkansas Code Annotated section 9-27-355(c)(1) (Repl.2009) provides that “a relative of a juvenile placed in the custody of the department shall be given preferential consideration for placement if the relative caregiver meets all relevant child protection standards and it is in…”
— Ark. Code Ann. § 9-27-355(c)(l) — 1 case
Davis-Lewallen v. Clegg, 378 S.W.3d 185 (Ark. Ct. App. 2010). “According to Arkansas Code Annotated section 9-27-355, the preference afforded to relatives is honored only if the court should find that placement with the relative is in the child’s best interest.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.