Four minors were placed in a permanent plan of long-term foster care with their grandmother in Riverside County. After the plan was instituted, the Riverside court transferred the case to Los Angeles County because the mother lived there. The case bounced back and forth between the counties five times before Los Angeles County Department of Children and Family Services initiated this appeal, challenging the most recent decision of Riverside County to reject the transfer. All the parties agreed that the case should remain in Riverside County. The appellate court held that the Riverside County Court improperly rejected the transfer from Los Angeles County. A plain reading of Rule 1426(a) is that upon receipt and filing of an order of transfer, the receiving court must take jurisdiction and not transfer the case. Welfare and Institutions Code section 375 does provide for a case to be transferred to where a parent lives, but here it was not in the children’s interest for the case to be transferred to Los Angeles. There was no expectation that mother would take custody of these children, and they had lived in Riverside with their grandmother for over a year. Their interests required supervision by Riverside County.