Where minor and his guardian lived in San Bernardino County, that court should have accepted transfer of the dependency case. Appellant, Los Angeles County, had jurisdiction of the juvenile dependency case when the minor and his mother lived in that county. Following termination of parental rights, the child was placed with a maternal relative in San Bernardino County. Los Angeles County entered orders transferring the case to San Bernardino County. San Bernardino County “accepted” the transfer for the sole purpose of entering orders to transfer the matter back to Los Angeles. Los Angeles County appealed the order, and the appellate court reversed, ordering the matter transferred to San Bernardino County. San Bernardino County’s de facto rejection of the transfer was erroneous. If it disagreed with the transfer order, its remedy was to accept the transfer and either appeal it or order a transfer-out hearing. Here, San Bernardino County did not hold a separate hearing and failed to consider whether the best interests of the minor would be served by a retransfer. Both the legal guardian and the minor lived in San Bernardino County and the placement required ongoing supervision. The only reasonable conclusion was the child’s best interests were served by having the case supervised in San Bernardino County.