An act to amend Section 361.3 of the Welfare and Institutions Code, relating to juveniles.
Summary
AB 1846 revises California’s relative-placement rules in juvenile dependency cases. The bill keeps the existing preference for placing a child with a relative after removal from parental custody, but adds more explicit procedural requirements for courts and county social workers. If a child is not initially placed with a relative who has been considered, the court must state on the record why the placement was denied or delayed. The bill also requires social workers, after the dispositional hearing, to assess any relative who requests placement and has not already been assessed or found unsuitable, subject to specified exceptions.
The bill further directs that when a child welfare agency recommends placement with a relative after certain hearings and the court finds by clear and convincing evidence that the placement is in the child’s best interest, the court must order that placement. It also clarifies that a relative placement order does not bar later placement changes to another appropriate relative, including under the Interstate Compact on the Placement of Children, and does not require a new petition in those circumstances. When reunification services have already been terminated before a relative requests placement, the bill adds factors the court and social worker must consider, including the child’s relationship with the current caregiver, progress toward permanency, and the child’s placement preference.
Impact
AB 1846 amends Welfare and Institutions Code Section 361.3, which governs preferential consideration for relative placement in dependency proceedings. The bill expands the duties of county social workers to assess requesting relatives and requires courts to make a record when relative placement is denied or delayed, while also creating a mandatory placement order in certain post-hearing circumstances when the agency recommends the relative and the court finds the placement is in the child’s best interest. Because it increases county social worker responsibilities, the bill is treated as a state-mandated local program, though it states no reimbursement is required under the act’s specified funding provisions.
Sentiment
The bill appears to have strong bipartisan or at least broad institutional support, with unanimous or near-unanimous committee and floor votes and referral to the consent calendar. The available voting history shows no recorded opposition at each stage, suggesting the measure was viewed as a relatively noncontroversial child-welfare clarification. The absence of committee transcript discussion limits insight into debate, but the vote pattern indicates general agreement with strengthening relative-placement procedures.
Contention
There is little visible opposition in the available record. The main policy tension is between prioritizing relatives and preserving court and agency discretion to choose the placement that best serves the child. The bill addresses that tension by requiring more documentation and assessments, but also by allowing later placement changes and preserving best-interest findings. Any practical concerns likely center on the added workload for county social workers, the timing of relative requests after reunification services end, and how much weight should be given to the child’s current caregiver and permanency progress versus family placement preference.