The juvenile court erred when it failed to apply the relative placement preference pursuant to section 361.3. Minor was removed due to Mother’s substance abuse and mental health concerns and placed with a non-relative. (Caregiver). Following detention, Maternal Aunt (Aunt) promptly requested placement. The Agency did not place Minor with Aunt either on an emergency basis or after she received RFA approval about seven months later. The Agency told Caregiver that it would place Minor with Aunt, but then did not act after Caregiver raised objections. At the 361.3 hearing, which occurred over a year after detention, the juvenile court found that it was too late to apply the relative placement preference and that it was not in Minor’s best interest to move her due to her bond with Caregiver and the passage of time. Mother appealed and the reviewing court reversed. The Legislature has expressed a strong preference to place children with family members whenever possible. The Agency is required to promptly and diligently assess any interested family members for placement when a child is removed, and section 361.3 places the relative at the head of the line for placement. The Agency cannot shut a family almost completely out of the process for over a year and then point to the passage of time and failure to form a bond as the reasons for denial of placement. Here, the Agency did not comply with its duty of due diligence due to the inexplicable delays in fairly evaluating Aunt.

The juvenile court erred by failing to give proper notice of hearings to Conservator and by failing to appoint a Guardian ad Litem (GAL) or Conservator to represent Mother. The social worker reports demonstrate that the Agency was aware that Aunt was appointed as Mother’s conservator. Given Aunt’s status as conservator, service on Aunt was required. However, neither the juvenile court nor the Agency served notices of any of the hearings on Aunt. Additionally, the juvenile court did not appoint a GAL for Mother or appoint Aunt to appear on Mother’s behalf. This was prejudicial error as Aunt was foreclosed from being able to appear at key hearings to voice the family’s concerns regarding numerous failures by the Agency in relation to visitation and relative placement. This notice error extends to the writ advisement, providing good cause to excuse Mother from her failure to seek writ review regarding the termination of reunification services.

The juvenile court erred in finding that the Agency provided reasonable services. At the detention hearing the juvenile court ordered nine hours of visitation per week for Mother. Despite this, for the next year Mother was given only weekly virtual visits with Minor with no explanation as to why in-person visitation was not provided. At the review hearing, the juvenile court terminated Mother’s reunification services, finding that Mother’s visitation had been inconsistent. At the section 366.26 hearing, the juvenile court terminated Mother’s parental rights. Mother appealed and the reviewing court reversed. Visitation is an essential component of any reunification plan. The Agency’s failure to provide Mother with the court-ordered visitation for over a year was unreasonable.

Full opinion: https://www.courts.ca.gov/opinions/documents/B326007.PDF