Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
77 California opinions name it 1 courts 1991–2026 31 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by California courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Cesar v. v. Superior Courtgreen2 sentences2025(In re Stephanie M., supra, 7 Cal.4th at p. 321 [“the court is not to presume that a child should be placed with a relative, but is to determine whether such a placement is appropriate, taking into account the suitability of the relative’s home and the best interest of the 15 child”]; In re Isabella G., supra, 246 Cal.App.4th at pp. 719-723 [agency required to assess relative under section 361.3, subdivision (a) and court required to exercise its independent judgment]; Cesar V. v. Superior Court (2001) 91 Cal.App.4th 1023 , 1033-1035 [same]); Alicia B. v. Superior Court (2004) 116 Cal.App.4th 2024(See Cesar V. v. Superior Court (2001) 91 Cal.App.4th 1023 , 1034-1035 (Cesar V.) [relative, although not a party, had standing to appeal denial of her placement request under section 361.3].) 15 Noting we must liberally construe his standing to challenge the court’s purported error in failing to consider placement with paternal grandmother, P.J.—mirroring the language in Esperanza C.—argues that, even if “unlikely,” an alternative permanency plan to adoption remained a “statutory option” for the court. | 8 | 19 |
San Joaquin County Department of Human Services v. Gary L.green2 sentences2023(In re Stephanie M., supra, 7 Cal.4th at p. 318 ; In re Robert L. (1993) 21 Cal.App.4th 1057, 1067 ; In re A.S. (2009) 180 Cal.App.4th 351, 358 .) 6 In assessing a request for relative placement under section 361.3, the statute provides for several factors to be considered by the Department and juvenile court. 2020(In re Robert L. (1993) 21 Cal.App.4th 1057, 1067 [“the abuse of discretion standard should be applied to the review on appeal of the juvenile court’s determination regarding relative placement pursuant to section 361.3”].) As to the earlier period, Grandmother contends the Department took no steps to assess her when she expressed interest in taking custody of K.B. in November 2018. | 6 | 12 |
In Re Sarah S.green2 sentences2023The Relative Placement Preference Is Inapplicable Moreover, even if Appellants had preserved this argument, we conclude the siblings’ adoptive parents were not entitled to consideration under section 361.3 because they are not D.P.’s relatives under the statute.4 The provision gives “preferential consideration” to a request by a relative of a child who has been removed from parental custody for placement of that child. 4 At oral argument, the Agency conceded that the siblings’ adoptive parents are not entitled to relative placement preference under section 361.3. 13 “ ‘Preferential considerati 2023The Relative Placement Preference Is Inapplicable Moreover, even if Appellants had preserved this argument, we conclude the siblings’ adoptive parents were not entitled to consideration under section 361.3 because they are not D.P.’s relatives under the statute.4 The provision gives “preferential consideration” to a request by a relative of a child who has been removed from parental custody for placement of that child. 4 At oral argument, the Agency conceded that the siblings’ adoptive parents are not entitled to relative placement preference under section 361.3. 13 “ ‘Preferential considerati | 5 | 12 |
San Diego County Health & Human Services Agency v. Alejandro G.green2 sentences2025In Isabella G., supra, 246 Cal.App.4th 708, 712 , the court held that when placement is timely requested but the assessment is improperly delayed, the court must hold a hearing and evaluate the placement request under section 361.3. 2020(Id. at p. 583.) We stated that section 361.3 generally applies “[a]t the outset of the [dependency] case and during the reunification period.” (Id. at p. 591.) In Maria Q., we distinguished our prior opinion in In re Isabella G. (2016) 246 Cal.App.4th 708 (Isabella G.), noting that case involved a postreunification relative 20 placement, but “did not address whether the [section 361.3] relative placement preference applies after the court has held a permanency plan hearing under section 366.26.” (Maria Q., at p. 593.) Addressing that issue, we stated: “In view of the statutory preferences est | 4 | 17 |
Los Angeles County Department of Children & Family Services v. Joseph T.green2 sentences2023(In re Joseph T. (2008) 163 Cal.App.4th 787, 798 .) “The relative placement provisions in section 361.3 apply when a child is taken from [his or] her parents and placed outside the home pending the determination whether reunification is possible. [Citation.] The relative placement preference also applies to placements made after the dispositional hearing, even when reunification efforts are no longer ongoing, whenever a child must be moved.” (In re A.K. (2017) 12 Cal.App.5th 492, 498 .) It is less clear whether, and under what circumstances the relative placement preference applies after reuni 2022(In re Isabella G. (2016) 246 Cal.App.4th 708, 719 , italics added.) “The relative placement preference, however, is not a relative placement guarantee.” (In re Joseph T. (2008) 163 Cal.App.4th 787, 798 .) We review “the juvenile court’s determination regarding relative placement pursuant to section 361.3” for abuse of discretion. | 4 | 8 |
Sacramento Dep't of Health & Human Servs. v. A.L. (In re A.K.)green2 sentences2023(In re Joseph T. (2008) 163 Cal.App.4th 787, 798 .) “The relative placement provisions in section 361.3 apply when a child is taken from [his or] her parents and placed outside the home pending the determination whether reunification is possible. [Citation.] The relative placement preference also applies to placements made after the dispositional hearing, even when reunification efforts are no longer ongoing, whenever a child must be moved.” (In re A.K. (2017) 12 Cal.App.5th 492, 498 .) It is less clear whether, and under what circumstances the relative placement preference applies after reuni 2023(See In re A.K. (2017) 12 Cal.App.5th 492, 500, 502 [by “failing to pursue the matter in juvenile court,” “father forfeited any contentions he had regarding the adequacy of . . . the juvenile court’s consideration[ ] of . . . placement under the requirements of section 361.3”]; In re John M. (2013) 217 Cal.App.4th 410, 420 [“[F]ather forfeited the issue by his failure to raise it in the dependency court, which would have permitted the court to . . . rule on the issue with an adequate record and argument”]; In re A.A. (2012) 203 Cal.App.4th 597, 605 [“Failure to object to noncompliance . . . in | 4 | 8 |
ALICIA B. v. Superior Courtgreen2 sentences2025(In re Stephanie M., supra, 7 Cal.4th at p. 321 [“the court is not to presume that a child should be placed with a relative, but is to determine whether such a placement is appropriate, taking into account the suitability of the relative’s home and the best interest of the 15 child”]; In re Isabella G., supra, 246 Cal.App.4th at pp. 719-723 [agency required to assess relative under section 361.3, subdivision (a) and court required to exercise its independent judgment]; Cesar V. v. Superior Court (2001) 91 Cal.App.4th 1023 , 1033-1035 [same]); Alicia B. v. Superior Court (2004) 116 Cal.App.4th 2022(See In re Jasmon O. (1994) 8 Cal.4th 398, 415 [ruling on § 388 petition to change order after permanency planning hearing reviewed for abuse of discretion; Alicia B. v. Superior Court (2004) 116 Cal.App.4th 856, 862-863 [placement order under § 361.3 reviewed under abuse of discretion standard].) We “‘interfere only “‘if we find that under all the evidence, viewed most favorably in support of the trial court’s action, no judge could reasonably have made the order that he [or she] did.’ [Citations.]” [Citation.]’ [Citation.]” (Alicia B. v. Superior Court, supra, 116 Cal.App.4th at p. 863 .) Th | 4 | 6 |
In Re Stephanie M.green2 sentences2023(In re Stephanie M., supra, 7 Cal.4th at p. 318 ; In re Robert L. (1993) 21 Cal.App.4th 1057, 1067 ; In re A.S. (2009) 180 Cal.App.4th 351, 358 .) 6 In assessing a request for relative placement under section 361.3, the statute provides for several factors to be considered by the Department and juvenile court. 2021Although a juvenile court is required to consider the various factors under section 361.3, when a request for relative placement under section 361.3 is made alongside a “section 388 [motion] for change of placement after the termination of reunification services, the predominant task of the court [is] to determine the child’s best interest.” (In re Stephanie M., supra, 7 Cal.4th at p. 320 , italics added.) Once reunification is off the table, the focus “‘shifts to the needs of the child for permanency and stability’ [citation], . . . . [Citation.] A court hearing a motion for change of placeme | 3 | 9 |
In Re Lauren R.green2 sentences2020A Section 361.3, subdivision (a) provides: “In any case in which a child is removed from the physical custody of his or her parents pursuant to Section 361, preferential consideration shall be given to a request by a relative of the child for placement of the child with the relative . . . .” Section 361.3, subdivision (d) further provides: “Subsequent to the hearing conducted pursuant to Section 358, whenever a new placement of the child must be made, consideration for placement shall again be given as described in this 19 section to relatives who have not been found to be unsuitable and who w 2014(Cesar V., p. 1032.) However, as Cesar V. also recognized, “It is well established that the relative placement preference found in section 361.3 does not apply after parental rights have been terminated and the child has been freed for adoption.” (Cesar V., supra, 52 Cal.4th at p. 1031 .) In particular, “[w]hen reunification has failed . . . and the juvenile court has before it a proposed permanent plan for adoption, the only relative with a preference is a ‘relative caretaker’ (if there is one seeking to adopt) and the only preference is that defined by subdivision (k) of section 366.26 . . . | 3 | 9 |
In Re Joel H.green2 sentences2018(See, e.g., In re E.T. (2013) 217 Cal.App.4th 426, 438-439 [abuse of discretion]; In re Sabrina H. (2007) 149 Cal.App.4th 1403, 1420-1421 (Sabrina H.) [abuse of discretion]; Miguel E., supra, 120 Cal.App.4th at p. 548 [substantial evidence]; In re A.O. (2004) 120 Cal.App.4th 1054, 1061 [substantial evidence]; Alicia B. v. Superior Court (2004) 116 Cal.App.4th 856, 863-864 [abuse of discretion]; In re Luke L. (1996) 44 Cal.App.4th 670, 680 [abuse of discretion]; In re Sarah S. (1996) 43 Cal.App.4th 274, 286 [abuse of discretion]; In re Robert L. (1993) 21 Cal.App.4th 1057, 1065-1067 (Robert L.) 2014The law does not require that a fact necessary to establish jurisdiction under section 300 be established to warrant a change in placement. [Citation.] Neither is physical or emotional abuse the test under section 387 for modifying a previous placement." (In re Joel H. (1993) 19 Cal.App.4th 1185, 1200 (Joel H.).) Where, as here, the petition under section 387 is directed at a relative, the factual finding required for jurisdiction is that "the placement is not appropriate in view of the criteria in Section 361.3." (§ 387, subd. (b); In re A.O. (2004) 120 Cal.App.4th 1054, 1061 ; In re Miguel E | 3 | 3 |
In Re Sabrina H.green2 sentences2018(See, e.g., In re E.T. (2013) 217 Cal.App.4th 426, 438-439 [abuse of discretion]; In re Sabrina H. (2007) 149 Cal.App.4th 1403, 1420-1421 (Sabrina H.) [abuse of discretion]; Miguel E., supra, 120 Cal.App.4th at p. 548 [substantial evidence]; In re A.O. (2004) 120 Cal.App.4th 1054, 1061 [substantial evidence]; Alicia B. v. Superior Court (2004) 116 Cal.App.4th 856, 863-864 [abuse of discretion]; In re Luke L. (1996) 44 Cal.App.4th 670, 680 [abuse of discretion]; In re Sarah S. (1996) 43 Cal.App.4th 274, 286 [abuse of discretion]; In re Robert L. (1993) 21 Cal.App.4th 1057, 1065-1067 (Robert L.) 2014Such a determination, like decisions in custody cases, involves primarily factual matters and a judgment whether the ruling rests on a reasonable basis.”]; accord, In re Sabrina H. (2007) 149 Cal.App.4th 1403, 1420 [“juvenile court’s placement orders are reviewed under the abuse of discretion standard; the court is given wide discretion and its determination will not be disturbed absent a manifest showing of abuse”].) 2. | 3 | 3 |
In Re Antonio G.green2 sentences2014(In re Antonio G. (2007) 159 Cal.App.4th 369, 376-377 .) Relatives are given preferential consideration for placement. (§§ 361.3, subd. (a), 16000, subd. (a), 16501.1, subd. (c)(1).) Before a child may be placed in a relative's home, the social worker must assess the appropriateness of the placement. (§ 361.4, subd. (a).) The relative's home must meet the same safety standards used in licensing foster homes. (§§ 309, subd. (d), 361.3, subd. (a)(8), 16501.1, subd. (c)(1).) If the person has no criminal record (other than minor traffic violations), the social worker and the court may consider th 2008(In re Antonio G. (2007) 159 Cal.App.4th 369, 376-377 [ 71 Cal.Rptr.3d 79 ].) If a relative has a disqualifying criminal conviction, the child cannot be placed in the relative’s home without a grant of a criminal records exemption (exemption) by the State Department of Social Services or its county designee (agency). (§ 361.4, subd. (d)(2).) An erroneous classification of a criminal conviction as a “nonexemptible” offense deprives the juvenile court of its “broad authority to make any and all reasonable orders for the care, custody and supervision of dependent children,” including its specific | 2 | 3 |
Los Angeles County Department of Children & Family Services v. John M.red2 sentences2023(See In re A.K. (2017) 12 Cal.App.5th 492, 500, 502 [by “failing to pursue the matter in juvenile court,” “father forfeited any contentions he had regarding the adequacy of . . . the juvenile court’s consideration[ ] of . . . placement under the requirements of section 361.3”]; In re John M. (2013) 217 Cal.App.4th 410, 420 [“[F]ather forfeited the issue by his failure to raise it in the dependency court, which would have permitted the court to . . . rule on the issue with an adequate record and argument”]; In re A.A. (2012) 203 Cal.App.4th 597, 605 [“Failure to object to noncompliance . . . in 2023(See In re A.K. (2017) 12 Cal.App.5th 492, 500, 502 [by “failing to pursue the matter in juvenile court,” “father forfeited any contentions he had regarding the adequacy of . . . the juvenile court’s consideration[ ] of . . . placement under the requirements of section 361.3”]; In re John M. (2013) 217 Cal.App.4th 410, 420 [“[F]ather forfeited the issue by his failure to raise it in the dependency court, which would have permitted the court to . . . rule on the issue with an adequate record and argument”]; In re A.A. (2012) 203 Cal.App.4th 597, 605 [“Failure to object to noncompliance . . . in | 2 | 2 |
Riverside County Department of Public Social Services v. A.B.green2 sentences2023(See In re A.K. (2017) 12 Cal.App.5th 492, 500, 502 [by “failing to pursue the matter in juvenile court,” “father forfeited any contentions he had regarding the adequacy of . . . the juvenile court’s consideration[ ] of . . . placement under the requirements of section 361.3”]; In re John M. (2013) 217 Cal.App.4th 410, 420 [“[F]ather forfeited the issue by his failure to raise it in the dependency court, which would have permitted the court to . . . rule on the issue with an adequate record and argument”]; In re A.A. (2012) 203 Cal.App.4th 597, 605 [“Failure to object to noncompliance . . . in 2023(See In re A.K. (2017) 12 Cal.App.5th 492, 500, 502 [by “failing to pursue the matter in juvenile court,” “father forfeited any contentions he had regarding the adequacy of . . . the juvenile court’s consideration[ ] of . . . placement under the requirements of section 361.3”]; In re John M. (2013) 217 Cal.App.4th 410, 420 [“[F]ather forfeited the issue by his failure to raise it in the dependency court, which would have permitted the court to . . . rule on the issue with an adequate record and argument”]; In re A.A. (2012) 203 Cal.App.4th 597, 605 [“Failure to object to noncompliance . . . in | 2 | 2 |
Los Angeles County Department of Children & Family Services v. Wilford J.green2 sentences2023(See In re A.K. (2017) 12 Cal.App.5th 492, 500, 502 [by “failing to pursue the matter in juvenile court,” “father forfeited any contentions he had regarding the adequacy of . . . the juvenile court’s consideration[ ] of . . . placement under the requirements of section 361.3”]; In re John M. (2013) 217 Cal.App.4th 410, 420 [“[F]ather forfeited the issue by his failure to raise it in the dependency court, which would have permitted the court to . . . rule on the issue with an adequate record and argument”]; In re A.A. (2012) 203 Cal.App.4th 597, 605 [“Failure to object to noncompliance . . . in 2023(See In re A.K. (2017) 12 Cal.App.5th 492, 500, 502 [by “failing to pursue the matter in juvenile court,” “father forfeited any contentions he had regarding the adequacy of . . . the juvenile court’s consideration[ ] of . . . placement under the requirements of section 361.3”]; In re John M. (2013) 217 Cal.App.4th 410, 420 [“[F]ather forfeited the issue by his failure to raise it in the dependency court, which would have permitted the court to . . . rule on the issue with an adequate record and argument”]; In re A.A. (2012) 203 Cal.App.4th 597, 605 [“Failure to object to noncompliance . . . in | 2 | 2 |
In Re Aogreen2 sentences2018(See, e.g., In re E.T. (2013) 217 Cal.App.4th 426, 438-439 [abuse of discretion]; In re Sabrina H. (2007) 149 Cal.App.4th 1403, 1420-1421 (Sabrina H.) [abuse of discretion]; Miguel E., supra, 120 Cal.App.4th at p. 548 [substantial evidence]; In re A.O. (2004) 120 Cal.App.4th 1054, 1061 [substantial evidence]; Alicia B. v. Superior Court (2004) 116 Cal.App.4th 856, 863-864 [abuse of discretion]; In re Luke L. (1996) 44 Cal.App.4th 670, 680 [abuse of discretion]; In re Sarah S. (1996) 43 Cal.App.4th 274, 286 [abuse of discretion]; In re Robert L. (1993) 21 Cal.App.4th 1057, 1065-1067 (Robert L.) 2014The law does not require that a fact necessary to establish jurisdiction under section 300 be established to warrant a change in placement. [Citation.] Neither is physical or emotional abuse the test under section 387 for modifying a previous placement." (In re Joel H. (1993) 19 Cal.App.4th 1185, 1200 (Joel H.).) Where, as here, the petition under section 387 is directed at a relative, the factual finding required for jurisdiction is that "the placement is not appropriate in view of the criteria in Section 361.3." (§ 387, subd. (b); In re A.O. (2004) 120 Cal.App.4th 1054, 1061 ; In re Miguel E | 2 | 2 |
Fresno County Department of Children & Family Sevices v. Superior Courtgreen2 sentences2008When a child is removed from parental custody, the Legislature prefers placement with the child's relatives, whenever possible. ( In re Antonio G. (2007) 159 Cal.App.4th 369, 376-377 [ 71 Cal.Rptr.3d 79 ].) If a relative has a disqualifying criminal conviction, the child cannot be placed in the relative's home without a grant of a criminal records exemption (exemption) by the State Department of Social Services or its county designee (agency). (§ 361.4, subd. (d)(2).) An erroneous classification of a criminal conviction as a nonexemptible offense deprives the juvenile court of its "broad autho 2008When a child is removed from parental custody, the Legislature prefers placement with the child's relatives, whenever possible. ( In re Antonio G. (2007) 159 Cal.App.4th 369, 376-377 [ 71 Cal.Rptr.3d 79 ].) If a relative has a disqualifying criminal conviction, the child cannot be placed in the relative's home without a grant of a criminal records exemption (exemption) by the State Department of Social Services or its county designee (agency). (§ 361.4, subd. (d)(2).) An erroneous classification of a criminal conviction as a nonexemptible offense deprives the juvenile court of its "broad autho | 2 | 2 |
Alameda County Social Services Agency v. Paula T.green2 sentences2025At the paternal aunts’ insistence, the agency assessed their homes for safety but did so without any intention of determining if relative placement was appropriate under the statutory criteria.” (Ibid., citing, § 361.3, subd. (a).) “There is nothing in the record to indicate that a relative placement evaluation under statutory standards was performed,” and the child’s “caseworker testified she never considered the relatives for placement and said the agency’s ‘plan from day one has only been to consider adoption of this child’ by [father’s ex-girlfriend] and not his paternal relatives.” (R.T., 2025At the paternal aunts’ insistence, the agency assessed their homes for safety but did so without any intention of determining if relative placement was appropriate under the statutory criteria.” (Ibid., citing, § 361.3, subd. (a).) “There is nothing in the record to indicate that a relative placement evaluation under statutory standards was performed,” and the child’s “caseworker testified she never considered the relatives for placement and said the agency’s ‘plan from day one has only been to consider adoption of this child’ by [father’s ex-girlfriend] and not his paternal relatives.” (R.T., | 1 | 5 |
In Re Esperanza C.green2 sentences2023Section 361.3 Generally, “[w]hen a child is removed from parental custody, the Legislature prefers placement with the child’s relatives, whenever possible.” (In re Esperanza C. (2008) 165 Cal.App.4th 1042, 1049 .) After removal, section 361.3, subdivision (a) requires “preferential consideration shall be given to a request by a relative of the child for placement of the child with the relative[.]” The statute defines “ ‘preferential consideration’ ” to mean “the relative seeking placement shall be the first placement to be considered and investigated.” (§ 361.3, subd. (c)(1).) “The intent of t 2019D0744028). *415 DISCUSSION I A Overview Every child has a compelling interest in living free from abuse and neglect in a safe and stable home with an emotionally committed caregiver. ( In re Dakota H . (2005) 132 Cal.App.4th 212 , 223, 33 Cal.Rptr.3d 337 ( Dakota H . ).) Children in foster care live in a variety of homes, including foster family homes, approved relative and nonrelative extended family homes, and group homes. (§ 16519, subd. (b).) Where possible, placement with a relative is preferred. (§ 361.3; see In re Esperanza C . (2008) 165 Cal.App.4th 1042 , 1055, 81 Cal.Rptr.3d 556 ( Es | 1 | 2 |
People v. W.B.green2 sentences2019We presume the Legislature, in enacting section 16519.5, was aware of sections 317 and 827, and the definition of juvenile case file in rule 5.552. ( In re W.B. (2012) 55 Cal.4th 30 , 57, 144 Cal.Rptr.3d 843 , 281 P.3d 906 [Legislature is presumed to know about existing case law when it enacts or amends a statute].) We therefore conclude the portions of the written report that are relevant to the child's placement with a relative under section 361.3 are part of the juvenile case file, notwithstanding the location of the written report. 2019We presume the Legislature, in enacting section 16519.5, was aware of sections 317 and 827, and the definition of juvenile case file in rule 5.552. ( In re W.B. (2012) 55 Cal.4th 30 , 57, 144 Cal.Rptr.3d 843 , 281 P.3d 906 [Legislature is presumed to know about existing case law when it enacts or amends a statute].) We therefore conclude the portions of the written report that are relevant to the child's placement with a relative under section 361.3 are part of the juvenile case file, notwithstanding the location of the written report. | 1 | 2 |
Orange County Social Services Agency v. Doris F.green2 sentences2018(See, e.g., Foster v. Foster (1937) 8 Cal.2d 719 , 730, 68 P.2d 719 ; Ellis v. Lyons (2016) 2 Cal.App.5th 404 , 415, 206 Cal.Rptr.3d 687 ) In addition, in dependency cases, our judicial district has long reviewed a finding of the child's best interest under the abuse of discretion standard. ( In re Kimberly F. (1997) 56 Cal.App.4th 519 , 535, 65 Cal.Rptr.2d 495 ( Kimberly F . ) ) In concluding that abuse of discretion was the appropriate standard of review for a relative placement order under section 361.3, the Robert L . court stated, "[i]t would seem obvious that, if there were no evidence t 2018(See, e.g., Foster v. Foster (1937) 8 Cal.2d 719 , 730, 68 P.2d 719 ; Ellis v. Lyons (2016) 2 Cal.App.5th 404 , 415, 206 Cal.Rptr.3d 687 ) In addition, in dependency cases, our judicial district has long reviewed a finding of the child's best interest under the abuse of discretion standard. ( In re Kimberly F. (1997) 56 Cal.App.4th 519 , 535, 65 Cal.Rptr.2d 495 ( Kimberly F . ) ) In concluding that abuse of discretion was the appropriate standard of review for a relative placement order under section 361.3, the Robert L . court stated, "[i]t would seem obvious that, if there were no evidence t | 1 | 2 |
In Re Miguel E.green2 sentences2018(See, e.g., In re E.T. (2013) 217 Cal.App.4th 426, 438-439 [abuse of discretion]; In re Sabrina H. (2007) 149 Cal.App.4th 1403, 1420-1421 (Sabrina H.) [abuse of discretion]; Miguel E., supra, 120 Cal.App.4th at p. 548 [substantial evidence]; In re A.O. (2004) 120 Cal.App.4th 1054, 1061 [substantial evidence]; Alicia B. v. Superior Court (2004) 116 Cal.App.4th 856, 863-864 [abuse of discretion]; In re Luke L. (1996) 44 Cal.App.4th 670, 680 [abuse of discretion]; In re Sarah S. (1996) 43 Cal.App.4th 274, 286 [abuse of discretion]; In re Robert L. (1993) 21 Cal.App.4th 1057, 1065-1067 (Robert L.) 2014The law does not require that a fact necessary to establish jurisdiction under section 300 be established to warrant a change in placement. [Citation.] Neither is physical or emotional abuse the test under section 387 for modifying a previous placement." (In re Joel H. (1993) 19 Cal.App.4th 1185, 1200 (Joel H.).) Where, as here, the petition under section 387 is directed at a relative, the factual finding required for jurisdiction is that "the placement is not appropriate in view of the criteria in Section 361.3." (§ 387, subd. (b); In re A.O. (2004) 120 Cal.App.4th 1054, 1061 ; In re Miguel E | 1 | 2 |
People v. Figueroagreen2 sentences2018The issue was sufficiently addressed by the juvenile court during the proceedings to avoid a claim of forfeiture on appeal. 5 (Cf. Dakota H. , supra , 132 Cal.App.4th at pp. 221-222, 33 Cal.Rptr.3d 337 .) *591 II STANDARD OF REVIEW The issue whether the relative placement preference under section 361.3 applies when a child remains in foster care after a section 366.26 hearing is a question of law, which we review de novo. ( People v. Figueroa (1999) 68 Cal.App.4th 1409 , 1413, 81 Cal.Rptr.2d 216 [interpretation and applicability of a statute is a question of law].) Under settled rules of statu 2018The issue was sufficiently addressed by the juvenile court during the proceedings to avoid a claim of forfeiture on appeal. 5 (Cf. Dakota H. , supra , 132 Cal.App.4th at pp. 221-222, 33 Cal.Rptr.3d 337 .) *591 II STANDARD OF REVIEW The issue whether the relative placement preference under section 361.3 applies when a child remains in foster care after a section 366.26 hearing is a question of law, which we review de novo. ( People v. Figueroa (1999) 68 Cal.App.4th 1409 , 1413, 81 Cal.Rptr.2d 216 [interpretation and applicability of a statute is a question of law].) Under settled rules of statu | 1 | 2 |
People v. Greg F.green2 sentences2015(In re Greg F. (2012) 55 Cal.4th 393, 407 [ 146 Cal.Rptr.3d 272 , 283 P.3d 1160 ].) Thus, although a noncustodial parent is the child’s relative within the meaning of section 361.3, subdivision (c)(2), a parent is not considered for relative placement under section 361.3. 2015(In re Greg F. (2012) 55 Cal.4th 393, 407 [ 146 Cal.Rptr.3d 272 , 283 P.3d 1160 ].) Thus, although a noncustodial parent is the child’s relative within the meaning of section 361.3, subdivision (c)(2), a parent is not considered for relative placement under section 361.3. | 1 | 2 |
| In Re Jasmon O.green | 1 | 1 |
| Nemarnik v. Los Angeles Kings Hockey Clubgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Tiernan v. Trustees of California State University and Collegesgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Locke v. Warner Bros., Inc.green | 1 | 1 |
| Los Angeles County Department of Children & Family Services v. Jasmine M.green | 1 | 1 |
| San Diego County Health & Human Services Agency v. Laura C.green | 1 | 1 |
| Los Angeles County Department of Children & Family Services v. L.T.green | 1 | 1 |
| In Re Luke L.green | 1 | 1 |
| In Re HGgreen | 1 | 1 |
| In Re AOgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Schmidlin v. City of Palo Altogreen | 1 | 1 |
| Khajavi v. Feather River Anesthesia Medical Groupgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Le Francois v. Goelgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Department of Social Services v. Superior Court of Siskiyou Countygreen | 1 | 1 |
| San Diego County Department of Social Services v. Robert A.green | 1 | 1 |
| In Re Frank L.green | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
San Diego County Health & Human Services Agency v. Alejandro G.green2 sentences2025In Isabella G., supra, 246 Cal.App.4th 708, 712 , the court held that when placement is timely requested but the assessment is improperly delayed, the court must hold a hearing and evaluate the placement request under section 361.3. 2020(Id. at p. 583.) We stated that section 361.3 generally applies “[a]t the outset of the [dependency] case and during the reunification period.” (Id. at p. 591.) In Maria Q., we distinguished our prior opinion in In re Isabella G. (2016) 246 Cal.App.4th 708 (Isabella G.), noting that case involved a postreunification relative 20 placement, but “did not address whether the [section 361.3] relative placement preference applies after the court has held a permanency plan hearing under section 366.26.” (Maria Q., at p. 593.) Addressing that issue, we stated: “In view of the statutory preferences est | 1 | 17 |
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
San Diego Cnty. Health & Human Servs. Agency v. Y.M. (In re Maria Q.)
green
2 sentences2021Continuances may only be granted for good cause, and must be in the best interests of the child. (§ 352, subd. (a); In re Ninfa S. (1998) 62 Cal.App.4th 808, 810 .) “[W]hen a dependent child has been removed from his or her home, the Legislature expresses a clear preference for placement with a relative, if the home is appropriate and the placement is in the child’s best interest. [Citation.] The relative placement preference under section 361.3 applies throughout the reunification period. [Citation.] In addition, section 361.3 applies after the reunification period where the relative has made 2021(In re Stephanie M. (1994) 7 Cal.4th 295, 320 (Stephanie M.).) Section 361.3, subdivision (a) requires that “preferential consideration be given to a request by a relative of the child for placement of the child with the relative[.]” The statute defines “preferential consideration” to mean “that the relative seeking placement shall be the first placement to be considered and investigated.” (§ 361.3, subd. (c)(1).) “The intent of the Legislature is ‘that relatives be assessed and considered favorably, subject to the juvenile court’s consideration of the suitability of the relative’s home and th | 5 | 2020–2024 |
San Diego County Health & Human Services Agency v. Christina N.
green
2 sentences2018The issue was sufficiently addressed by the juvenile court during the 16 proceedings to avoid a claim of forfeiture on appeal.5 (Cf. Dakota H., supra, 132 Cal.App.4th at pp. 221–222.) II STANDARD OF REVIEW The issue whether the relative placement preference under section 361.3 applies when a child remains in foster care after a section 366.26 hearing is a question of law, which we review de novo. 2018The issue was sufficiently addressed by the juvenile court during the proceedings to avoid a claim of forfeiture on appeal. 5 (Cf. Dakota H. , supra , 132 Cal.App.4th at pp. 221-222, 33 Cal.Rptr.3d 337 .) *591 II STANDARD OF REVIEW The issue whether the relative placement preference under section 361.3 applies when a child remains in foster care after a section 366.26 hearing is a question of law, which we review de novo. ( People v. Figueroa (1999) 68 Cal.App.4th 1409 , 1413, 81 Cal.Rptr.2d 216 [interpretation and applicability of a statute is a question of law].) Under settled rules of statu | 3 | 2018–2019 |
Modoc County Department of Social Services v. Joshua S.
green
2 sentences2019Minor's counsel has unique responsibilities to her client, including the duty to investigate as necessary to understand the child's circumstances and make recommendations based on an evaluation of the child's best interests. ( 42 U.S.C. § 5106a(b)(2)(B)(xiii) ; § 317, subd. (c)(2) ; Nicole H. , supra , 201 Cal.App.4th at p. 398 , 134 Cal.Rptr.3d 261 ; Josiah Z ., supra , 36 Cal.4th at pp. 679-680, 31 Cal.Rptr.3d 472 , 115 P.3d 1133 .) We are also mindful of the limited resources in juvenile court and see no need for minor's counsel to duplicate, at taxpayer expense, elements of an investigatio 2019Minor's counsel has unique responsibilities to her client, including the duty to investigate as necessary to understand the child's circumstances and make recommendations based on an evaluation of the child's best interests. ( 42 U.S.C. § 5106a(b)(2)(B)(xiii) ; § 317, subd. (c)(2) ; Nicole H. , supra , 201 Cal.App.4th at p. 398 , 134 Cal.Rptr.3d 261 ; Josiah Z ., supra , 36 Cal.4th at pp. 679-680, 31 Cal.Rptr.3d 472 , 115 P.3d 1133 .) We are also mindful of the limited resources in juvenile court and see no need for minor's counsel to duplicate, at taxpayer expense, elements of an investigatio | 2 | 2019–2019 |
In Re Justice P.
green
2 sentences2018(See In re Justice P . (2004) 123 Cal.App.4th 181 , 193, 19 Cal.Rptr.3d 801 .) The juvenile court was required, as a matter of law, to select adoption as the boys' permanency plans. ( § 366.26.) In Maria's and J.M.'s cases, the juvenile court correctly refused to apply the relative placement preference under section 361.3. 2018(See In re Justice P . (2004) 123 Cal.App.4th 181 , 193, 19 Cal.Rptr.3d 801 .) The juvenile court was required, as a matter of law, to select adoption as the boys' permanency plans. ( § 366.26.) In Maria's and J.M.'s cases, the juvenile court correctly refused to apply the relative placement preference under section 361.3. | 2 | 2018–2018 |
Elizabeth D. v. San Diego County Health & Human Services Agency
green
2 sentences2015(D.S., supra, 207 Cal.App.4th at p. 1097 .) C For Purposes of Determining NREFM Status, a Parent Is a Relative Within the Meaning of Section 361.3, Subdivision (c)(2) The definition of relative under section 361.3, subdivision (c)(2) includes an adult who is related to the child by blood, adoption, or affinity within the fifth degree of kinship. 2015(D.S., supra, 207 Cal.App.4th at p. 1097 .) C For Purposes of Determining NREFM Status, A Parent Is A Relative Within the Meaning of Section 361.3, Subdivision (c)(2) The definition of relative under section 361.3, subdivision (c)(2) includes an adult who is related to the child by blood, adoption, or affinity within the fifth degree of 8 kinship. | 2 | 2015–2015 |
In Re KC
green
2 sentences2014(Cesar V., p. 1032.) However, as Cesar V. also recognized, “It is well established that the relative placement preference found in section 361.3 does not apply after parental rights have been terminated and the child has been freed for adoption.” (Cesar V., supra, 52 Cal.4th at p. 1031 .) In particular, “[w]hen reunification has failed . . . and the juvenile court has before it a proposed permanent plan for adoption, the only relative with a preference is a ‘relative caretaker’ (if there is one seeking to adopt) and the only preference is that defined by subdivision (k) of section 366.26 . . . 2013(In re Carissa G. (1999) 76 Cal.App.4th 731, 734 .) An “aggrieved person . . . is one whose rights or interests are injuriously affected by the decision in an immediate and substantial way, and not as a nominal or remote consequence of the decision.” (In re K.C. (2011) 52 Cal.4th 231 , 236.) 5 Appellate courts have held that the relative placement preference in section 361.3 confers upon a relative a separate, protectable interest with the minor. | 2 | 2013–2014 |
| In Re Baby Girl D. green | 2 | 1991–1991 |
| Alameda Cnty. Soc. Servs. Agency v. T.H. (In re M.H.) green | 1 | 2023–2023 |
| In Re As green | 1 | 2023–2023 |
| Landry v. Berryessa Union School District green | 1 | 2023–2023 |
| People v. Watson green | 1 | 2022–2022 |
| Paulus v. Bob Lynch Ford, Inc. green | 1 | 2022–2022 |
| In Re Merrick green | 1 | 2022–2022 |
| In Re Ninfa S. green | 1 | 2021–2021 |
| Marin County Health & Human Services Department v. D.J. green | 1 | 2020–2020 |
| In Re Alanna A. green | 1 | 2019–2019 |
| In Re Josiah Z. green | 1 | 2019–2019 |
| Ellis v. Lyons CA2/5 green | 1 | 2018–2018 |
| Foster v. Foster green | 1 | 2018–2018 |
| In Re Jasmine J. green | 1 | 2017–2017 |
| In Re Vanessa Z. green | 1 | 2017–2017 |
| In Re Gary P. green | 1 | 2017–2017 |
| In Re Christopher M. green | 1 | 2016–2016 |
| In Re Zachary G. green | 1 | 2014–2014 |
| In Re Zeth S. green | 1 | 2013–2013 |
| People v. James V. green | 1 | 2013–2013 |
| In Re Cheryl E. green | 1 | 2013–2013 |
| Los Angeles County Department of Children & Family Services v. D.C. green | 1 | 2013–2013 |
| In Re Carissa G. green | 1 | 2013–2013 |
| In Re Dylan T. green | 1 | 2008–2008 |
| In Re Andrea G. green | 1 | 1993–1993 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.