California Court of Appeal Clarifies Relative Placement Preference in Dependency Proceedings

Decker Law Successfully Defends Placement Order in Published Dependency Appeal

The California Court of Appeal recently issued a published decision addressing an important question in dependency law: whether adoptive parents of a child's biological siblings qualify for California's statutory relative placement preference.

Decker Law represented the de facto parents who successfully defended the juvenile court's decision to deny a request to move a young child from the only home she had ever known.

The published opinion provides important guidance regarding Welfare and Institutions Code section 361.3, sibling placement considerations, and the role of stability in dependency proceedings.

Background of the Case

The dependency case involved an infant who entered protective custody shortly after birth and was placed with foster parents when she was only a few days old. She remained in that home throughout the dependency proceedings and developed strong attachments to her caregivers and their children.

Meanwhile, the child's older biological siblings had previously been adopted by another family living in Michigan. After obtaining approval through the Interstate Compact on the Placement of Children (ICPC), the siblings' adoptive parents sought placement of the child in their home.

They later filed a Welfare and Institutions Code section 388 petition asking the juvenile court to modify its prior orders and transfer placement.

The juvenile court denied the request, finding that moving the child was not in her best interests.

An appeal followed.

The Legal Issue

The appeal centered on California's relative placement preference under Welfare and Institutions Code section 361.3.

The appellants argued that because they had adopted the child's biological siblings, they should receive the same preferential consideration afforded to relatives seeking placement of a dependent child.

The Court of Appeal was asked to determine whether adoptive parents of siblings qualify as "relatives" under the statute and whether the juvenile court abused its discretion in denying the requested placement change.

The Court of Appeal's Decision

The Court of Appeal affirmed the juvenile court's ruling.

First, the court held that the argument regarding section 361.3 had been forfeited because it was not properly raised in the juvenile court.

More importantly, the court explained that even if the issue had been preserved, the statutory relative placement preference did not apply.

The court concluded that adoptive parents of a child's biological siblings are not "relatives" within the meaning of Welfare and Institutions Code section 361.3. Although they are related to the siblings by adoption, they are not related to the dependent child by blood, adoption, or affinity as required by the statute.

The court also emphasized that relative placement preference generally applies when a new placement is required and does not override the juvenile court's obligation to evaluate the child's best interests.

Why The Child’s Stability Mattered

The Court of Appeal also upheld the juvenile court's finding that moving the child would not serve her best interests.

The evidence showed that the child had lived with the de facto parents nearly her entire life, had formed secure attachments to them, and viewed the other children in the household as siblings. The court recognized that removing the child from those relationships would create significant disruption and potential trauma.

Although the court acknowledged the importance of sibling relationships, it concluded that maintaining stability and continuity in placement was a critical consideration under the circumstances presented.

Why This Decision Matters

This published opinion provides guidance on several important dependency-law issues:

• The scope of California's relative placement preference;

• The definition of a "relative" under section 361.3;

• Placement requests by adoptive parents of biological siblings;

• Section 388 placement modification petitions; and

• The importance of stability and secure attachments in determining a child's best interests.

Because the opinion was certified for publication, it provides precedential guidance for future dependency proceedings throughout California.

Contact Decker Law

Decker Law represents clients throughout California in appeals, writ proceedings, and complex appellate matters. If you are facing an adverse trial court ruling or need guidance regarding a potential appeal, contact Decker Law to discuss your options.