Notice of changes brought about by AB 298 regarding how legal guardianship for a relative is considered as a permanency placement option. 1) a relative caregiver’s preference for legal guardianship over adoption, unrelated to an unwillingness to accept legal or financial responsibility for the child, cannot be the sole basis for recommending the removal of a child from the relative caregiver for adoptive placement; 2) requires that a relative caregiver be given information regarding the options of guardianship and adoption. To “ensure consistency” the state has provided an optional form; 3) changes the order of preference for permanent placement of the child. The the second option, after that of termination of parental rights, is now appointing the relative caretaker the legal guardian; 4) requires the court, under certain circumstances, to not terminate parental rights if the child is living with a relative who is unable or unwilling to adopt the child, unrelated to an unwillingness to accept legal or financial responsibility for the child, but who is willing to be the legal guardian, when removal of the child would be detrimental; 5) changes to the report that the county must prepare. [Download]

A correction to the portion of ACL 08-49 that described the duties of agencies dually licensed as FFAs and adoption agencies. [Download]

A reminder that the law now requires that foster care children who have moved to a new county of residence be disenrolled from the County Organized Health System (COHS) in the previous county of residence within two working days by the entity or person authorized to make medical decisions on behalf of the FC child. Includes “how to” instructions, including a reminder of the crucial need to immediately update the MEDS system of the new address. [Download]

New legislation has made changes to statutes regarding how legal guardianship for a relative is considered as a permanency placement option:
1) a relative caregiver’s preference for legal guardianship over adoption, if it is due to circumstances that do not include an unwillingness to accept legal or financial responsibility for the child, cannot be the sole basis for recommending the removal of a child from the relative caregiver for purposes of adoptive placement;
2) requires that a relative caregiver be given information regarding the permanency options of guardianship and adoption. This information should include the long-term benefits and consequences of each option. To ensure complete and comparable information, counties are encouraged to use PUB 344 and provides links to two charts;
3) changes the order of preference for findings and orders for permanent placement of the child. The court shall now consider, as the second option after that of termination of parental rights, appointing as the legal guardian the relative with whom the child is currently residing.
4) requires that the court, under certain circumstances, not terminate parental rights if the child is living with a relative who is unable or unwilling to adopt the child because of circumstances that do not include an unwillingness to accept legal or financial responsibility for the child, but who is willing and capable of providing the child with a stable and permanent environment through legal guardianship, and the removal of the child
from the custody of his or her relative would be detrimental to the emotional wellbeing of the child. For purposes of an Indian child, “relative” includes an “extended family member,” as defined in the federal Indian Child Welfare Act;
5) changes to the report that the county must prepare for the court prior to proceedings to terminate a guardianship established by the juvenile court, to address circumstances in which the child may be returned to the guardian and whether family maintenance or reunification services are recommended.
[Download]