In re M.H., 21 Cal.App.5th 1296

Background

M.H., born April 2016 with positive methamphetamine/cocaine tox screen, was detained and placed with nonrelative foster parents (concurrent foster/adopt home) where he bonded and lived since shortly after birth.
Mother’s reunification services were terminated; a section 366.26 permanency hearing was set and later combined with a contested placement hearing after maternal great-aunt E.W. (Minnesota) sought placement and obtained interstate-compact approval.
E.W., a 66‑year‑old Minnesota relative who previously fostered and raised children, visited M.H. several times and had her home approved for placement, but placement did not occur before the June hearing.
The agency and E.W. sought to move M.H. from his foster home to E.W.’s home; foster parents were granted de facto parent status and opposed the move.
The juvenile court denied the proposed change of placement, finding M.H. bonded to his foster parents and concluding removal would not be in his best interest; parental rights were terminated and foster parents designated prospective adoptive parents.
Agency and E.W. appealed, arguing the court ignored the statutory relative‑placement preference (Welf. & Inst. Code §361.3) and improperly relied on the caretaker‑preference (§366.26(k)). The Court of Appeal affirmed.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether §361.3 relative‑placement preference required placement with maternal great‑aunt	Agency/E.W.: E.W. is a relative entitled to preferential consideration; child should be placed with biological family	Respondents: §361.3 did not apply because great‑aunt was not within relatives given preference at the time and no new placement was necessary	Court: §361.3 inapplicable—statute did not include great‑aunt at hearing time and no new placement was required because child was bonded in existing placement
Whether §366.26(k) caretaker preference required favoring current caregivers	Agency/E.W.: court relied on caretaker preference to deny move; preference should apply	Respondents: §366.26(k) applies only where court has approved permanent plan for adoption or child freed for adoption—not satisfied here	Court: §366.26(k) inapplicable because no court approval of a permanent adoption plan or adoption freeing had occurred at decision time
Whether court abused discretion in denying change of placement after reunification services terminated	Agency/E.W.: moving to relative serves child’s cultural/family interests; agency has placement discretion	Respondents/foster parents: child’s need for stability and existing bond favors keeping placement	Court: No abuse of discretion—juvenile court reasonably concluded continued placement with bonded caregivers served child’s best interests despite tensions in court remarks
Whether agency’s placement discretion was unlawfully limited by court	Agency: agency has broad authority over adoptive placement and removal decisions	Respondents: court retains authority under §366.26(n) and best‑interest review protects stability	Court: Agency discretion not unlimited; court review under §366.26(n) and general best‑interest standard supports the decision

Key Cases Cited

In re Sarah S., 43 Cal.App.4th 274 (discussing relative‑placement preference at disposition)
In re Lauren R., 148 Cal.App.4th 841 (emphasizing child’s interest in stability and limits of relative preference after bonding)
In re Stephanie M., 7 Cal.4th 295 (standard: after reunification, focus shifts to child's need for permanency; abuse‑of‑discretion review)
Cesar V. v. Superior Court, 91 Cal.App.4th 1023 (placement decision and court authority prior to termination of parental rights)
In re Harry N., 93 Cal.App.4th 1378 (scope of agency discretion in adoptive placement)
Wayne F. v. Superior Court, 145 Cal.App.4th 1331 (legislative intent and judicial review under §366.26(n) to protect prospective adoptive caregivers)
Department of Social Services v. Superior Court, 58 Cal.App.4th 721 (agency authority over adoptive placement decisions)