efforts made to achieve legal permanence for the child if efforts to reunify fail, including, but not limited to, efforts to maintain relationships between a child who is 10 years of age or older and has been in out-of-home placement for six months or longer and individuals who are important to the child, consistent with the child’s best interests; the progress made; and, where relevant, the prognosis for return of the child to the physical custody of their parent or legal guardian; and shall make their recommendation for disposition. If the child is a member of a sibling group described in subparagraph (C) of paragraph (1) of subdivision (a) of Section 361.5, the report and recommendation may also take into account those factors described in subdivision (e) relating to the child’s sibling group. If the recommendation is not to return the child to a parent or legal guardian, the report shall
specify why the return of the child would be detrimental to the child. The social worker shall provide the parent or legal guardian, counsel for the child, and any court-appointed child advocate with a copy of the report, including their recommendation for disposition, at least 10 calendar days before the hearing. The report may be served pursuant to Section 212.5. In the case of a child removed from the physical custody of their parent or legal guardian, the social worker shall, at least 10 calendar days before the hearing, provide a summary of their recommendation for disposition to any foster parents, relative caregivers, and certified foster parents who have been approved for adoption by the State Department of Social Services when it is acting as an adoption agency or by a county adoption agency, community care facility, or foster family agency having the physical custody of the child. The
social worker shall include a copy of the Judicial Council’s Caregiver Information Form (JV-290) with the summary of their recommendation to the child’s foster parents, relative caregivers, or foster parents approved for adoption, in the caregiver’s primary language when available, along with information on how to file the form with the court. The form and summary of the recommendation may be served electronically pursuant to Section 212.5.
file with the court a report, or a Judicial Council’s Caregiver Information Form (JV-290), containing its recommendation for disposition. Prior to the hearing involving a child in the physical custody of a foster parent, a relative caregiver, or a certified foster parent who has been approved for adoption by the State Department of Social Services when it is acting as an adoption agency or by a county adoption agency, the foster parent, relative caregiver, or the certified foster parent who has been approved for adoption by the State Department of Social Services when it is acting as an adoption agency or by a county adoption agency, may file with the court a report containing their recommendation for disposition. The court shall consider the report and recommendation filed pursuant to this subdivision prior to determining any disposition.
child’s removal to the extent that the criminal record is substantially related to the welfare of the child or the parent’s or guardian’s ability to exercise custody and control regarding their child, provided the parent or legal guardian agreed to submit fingerprint images to obtain criminal history information as part of the case plan. The court shall also consider whether the child can be returned to the custody of their parent who is enrolled in a certified substance abuse treatment facility that allows a dependent child to reside with their parent. The fact that the parent is enrolled in a certified substance abuse treatment facility shall not be, for that reason alone, prima facie evidence of detriment. In making its determination, the court shall review and consider the social worker’s report and recommendations and the report and recommendations of any child advocate appointed pursuant to
Section 356.5; and shall consider the efforts or progress, or both, demonstrated by the parent or legal guardian and the extent to which they availed themselves of services provided, taking into account the particular barriers to a minor parent or a nonminor dependent parent, or an incarcerated, institutionalized, detained, or deported parent’s or legal guardian’s access to those court-mandated services and ability to maintain contact with their child.
return of the child to the custody of their parent or legal guardian. The court shall also inform the parent or legal guardian that if the child cannot be returned home by the 12-month permanency hearing, a proceeding pursuant to Section 366.26 may be instituted. This section does not apply in a case in which, pursuant to Section 361.5, the court has ordered that reunification services shall not be provided.
If, however, the court finds there is a substantial probability that the child, who was under three years of age on the date of initial removal or is a member of a sibling group described in subparagraph (C) of paragraph (1) of subdivision (a) of Section 361.5, may be returned to their parent or legal guardian within 6 months or that reasonable services have not been provided, or, in the case of an Indian child, active efforts as defined in subdivision (f) of Section 224.1 have not been made, the court shall continue the case to the 12-month permanency hearing.
the purpose of placing and maintaining a sibling group together in a permanent home, the court, in making its determination to schedule a hearing pursuant to Section 366.26 for some or all members of a sibling group, as described in subparagraph (C) of paragraph (1) of subdivision (a) of Section 361.5, shall review and consider the social worker’s report and recommendations. Factors the report shall address, and the court shall consider, may include, but need not be limited to, whether the sibling group was removed from parental care as a group, the closeness and strength of the sibling bond, the ages of the siblings, the appropriateness of maintaining the sibling group together, the detriment to the child if sibling ties are not maintained, the likelihood of finding a permanent home for the sibling group, whether the sibling group is currently placed together in a preadoptive home or has a
concurrent plan goal of legal permanency in the same home, the wishes of each child whose age and physical and emotional condition permits a meaningful response, and the best interests of each child in the sibling group. The court shall specify the factual basis for its finding that it is in the best interests of each child to schedule a hearing pursuant to Section 366.26 within 120 days for some or all of the members of the sibling group.
maintain contact with their child due to the parent’s incarceration, institutionalization, detention by the United States Department of Homeland Security, or deportation. If the court finds by clear and convincing evidence that the parent has been convicted of a felony indicating parental unfitness, the court may schedule a hearing pursuant to Section 366.26 within 120 days.
previously ordered shall continue to be offered to the parent or legal guardian pursuant to the time periods set forth in subdivision (a) of Section 361.5, provided that the court may modify the terms and conditions of those services.
those services be initiated, continued, or terminated.
protection, or physical or emotional well-being of the child. The social worker shall have the burden of establishing that detriment.
(A) At the permanency hearing, the court shall consider the criminal history, obtained pursuant to paragraph (1) of subdivision (f) of Section 16504.5, of the parent or legal guardian subsequent to the child’s removal to the extent that the criminal record is substantially related to the welfare of the child or the parent’s or
legal guardian’s ability to exercise custody and control regarding their child, provided that the parent or legal guardian agreed to submit fingerprint images to obtain criminal history information as part of the case plan. The court shall also determine by clear and convincing evidence whether reasonable services that were designed to aid the parent or legal guardian to overcome the problems that led to the initial removal and continued custody of the child have been provided or offered to the parent or legal
guardian, and, in the case of an Indian child, whether the agency has made active efforts, as defined in Section 224.1, to provide remedial services and rehabilitative programs designed to prevent the breakup of the Indian family.
(B) The court shall also consider whether the child can be returned to the custody of their parent who is enrolled in a certified substance abuse treatment facility that allows a dependent child to reside with their parent. The fact that the parent is enrolled in a certified substance abuse treatment facility shall not be, for that reason alone, prima facie evidence of detriment.
(C) In making its determination, the court shall review and consider the social worker’s report and recommendations and the report and recommendations of any child
advocate appointed pursuant to Section 356.5, shall consider the efforts or progress, or both, demonstrated by the parent or legal guardian and the extent to which they availed themselves of services provided, taking into account the particular barriers to a minor parent or a nonminor dependent parent, or an incarcerated, institutionalized, detained, or deported parent’s or legal guardian’s access to those court-mandated services and ability to maintain contact with their child, and shall make appropriate findings pursuant to subdivision (a) of Section 366.
(D) For each youth 16 years of age and older, the court shall also determine whether services have been made available to assist them in making the transition from foster care to successful adulthood.
the court shall specify the factual basis for its conclusion that the return would be detrimental. The court also shall make a finding pursuant to subdivision (a) of Section 366. If the child is not returned to their parent or legal guardian, the court shall consider, and state for the record, in-state and out-of-state placement options. If the child is placed out of the state, the court shall make a determination whether the out-of-state placement continues to be appropriate and in the best interests of the child.
pursuant to subdivision (f), the court shall do one of the following:
that active efforts as defined in subdivision (f) of Section 224.1 have not been made by the agency. For purposes of this section, in order to find a substantial probability that the child will be returned to the physical custody of their parent or legal guardian and safely maintained in the home within the extended period of time, the court shall be required to find all of the following:
complete the objectives of their treatment plan and to provide for the child’s safety, protection, physical and emotional well-being, and special needs.
(ii) The court shall inform the parent or legal guardian that if the child cannot be returned home by the next permanency review hearing, a proceeding pursuant to Section 366.26 may be instituted. The court shall not order that a hearing pursuant to Section 366.26 be held unless there is clear and
convincing evidence that reasonable services have been provided or offered to the parent or legal guardian, or, in the case of an Indian child, that the agency has made active efforts, as defined in Section 224.1, to provide remedial services and rehabilitative programs designed to prevent the breakup of the Indian family.
Security, or deported to their country of origin, and the court determines either that there is a substantial probability that the child will be returned to the physical custody of their parent or legal guardian and safely maintained in the home within the extended period of time or that reasonable services have not been provided to the parent or legal
guardian, or, in the case of an Indian child, that active efforts, as defined in Section 224.1, have not been made.
by the United States Department of Homeland Security, or deportation.
legal guardians, or in the case of an Indian child, that the agency has made active efforts, as defined in Section 224.1, to provide remedial services and rehabilitative programs designed to prevent the breakup of the Indian family. On and after January 1, 2012, a hearing pursuant to Section 366.26 shall not be ordered if the child is a nonminor dependent, unless the nonminor dependent is an Indian child and tribal customary adoption is recommended as the permanent plan.
pursuant to Section 366.26 is not in the best interests of the child because the child is not a proper subject for adoption and has no one willing to accept legal guardianship as of the hearing date. For purposes of this section, a recommendation by the State Department of Social Services when it is acting as an adoption agency or by a county adoption agency that adoption is not in the best interests of the child shall constitute a compelling reason for the court’s determination. That recommendation shall be based on the present circumstances of the child and shall not preclude a different recommendation at a later date if the child’s circumstances change. On and after January 1, 2012, the nonminor dependent’s legal status as an adult is in and of itself a compelling reason not to hold a hearing pursuant to Section 366.26. The court may order that a nonminor dependent who otherwise is eligible
pursuant to Section 11403 remain in a planned, permanent living arrangement.
remain in foster care, the court shall determine whether the agency has made reasonable efforts to maintain the child’s relationships with individuals other than the child’s siblings who are important to the child, consistent with the child’s best interests, and may make any appropriate order to ensure that those relationships are maintained.
shall be held, it shall also order the termination of reunification services to the parent or legal guardian. The court shall continue to permit the parent or legal guardian to visit the child pending the hearing unless it finds that visitation would be detrimental to the child. The court shall make any other appropriate orders to enable the child to maintain relationships with individuals, other than the child’s siblings, who are important to the child, consistent with the child’s best interests. When the court orders a termination of reunification services to the parent or legal guardian, it shall also order that the child’s caregiver receive the child’s birth certificate in accordance with Sections 16010.4 and 16010.5. Additionally, when the court orders a termination of reunification services to the parent or legal guardian, it shall order, when appropriate, that a child who is 16 years of age or
older receive their birth certificate.
(A) Current search efforts for an absent parent or parents or legal guardians.
(B) A review of the amount of and nature of any contact between the child and their parents or legal guardians and other members of their extended family since the time of placement. Although the
extended family of each child shall be reviewed on a case-by-case basis, “extended family” for the purpose of this subparagraph shall include, but not be limited to, the child’s siblings, grandparents, aunts, and uncles.
(C) (i) An evaluation of the child’s medical, developmental, scholastic, mental, and emotional status.
(ii) The evaluation pursuant to clause (i) shall include, but is not limited to, providing a copy of the complete health and education summary as required under Section 16010, including the name and contact information of the person or persons currently holding the right to make educational decisions for the child.
(iii) In instances where it is determined that disclosure pursuant to
clause (ii) of the contact information of the person or persons currently holding the right to make educational decisions for the child poses a threat to the health and safety of that individual or those individuals, that contact information shall be redacted or withheld from the evaluation.
(D) A preliminary assessment of the eligibility and commitment of any identified prospective adoptive parent or legal guardian, including the prospective tribal customary adoptive parent, particularly the caretaker, to include a social history including screening for criminal records and prior referrals for child abuse or neglect, the capability to meet the child’s needs, and the understanding of the legal and financial rights and responsibilities of adoption and guardianship. If a proposed guardian is a relative of the minor, the assessment shall
also consider, but need not be limited to, all of the factors specified in subdivision (a) of Section 361.3 and in Section 361.4.
(E) The relationship of the child to any identified prospective adoptive parent or legal guardian, the duration and character of the relationship, the degree of attachment of the child to the prospective relative guardian or adoptive parent, the relative’s or adoptive parent’s strong commitment to caring permanently for the child, the motivation for seeking adoption or guardianship, a statement from the child concerning placement and the adoption or guardianship, and whether the child, if over 12 years of age, has been consulted about the proposed relative guardianship arrangements, unless the child’s age or physical, emotional, or other condition precludes their meaningful response, and if so, a
description of the condition.
(F) A description of efforts to be made to identify a prospective adoptive parent or legal guardian, including, but not limited to, child-specific recruitment and listing on an adoption exchange within the state or out of the state.
(G) An analysis of the likelihood that the child will be adopted if parental rights are terminated.
(H) In the case of an Indian child, in addition to subparagraphs (A) to (G), inclusive, an assessment of the likelihood that the child will be adopted, when, in consultation with the child’s tribe, a tribal customary adoption, as defined in Section 366.24, is recommended. If tribal customary adoption is recommended, the assessment shall include an
analysis of both of the following:
(ii) Whether the Indian child cannot or should not be returned to the home of the Indian parent or Indian custodian and the reasons for reaching that conclusion.
dissolution. If the proposed permanent plan is guardianship with an approved relative caregiver for a minor eligible for aid under the Kin-GAP Program, as provided for in Article 4.7 (commencing with Section 11385) of Chapter 2 of Part 3 of Division 9, “relative” as used in this section has the same meaning as “relative” as defined in subdivision (c) of Section 11391.
placement for the child if efforts to reunify fail.
Cite this section