San Diego County Health & Human Services Agency v. Alejandro G., 246 Cal. App. 4th 708

Isabella, born 2011, was primarily cared for by her paternal grandparents before her parents resumed custody; parents had significant drug histories and were arrested in July 2013, leading to Isabella's detention.
The Agency placed Isabella with a nonrelative extended family member (NREFM, Marisol) after initial detention; grandparents repeatedly requested placement and provided documents for assessment.
The Agency repeatedly delayed or declined to complete the statutorily required relative home assessment (§ 361.3), informing relatives placement would not be changed or that assessments could take months.
Reunification services were ultimately terminated; grandparents sought placement again, retained counsel, and filed a § 388 petition, after which the Agency completed and approved the grandparents’ home in under three weeks.
At the subsequent hearings the juvenile court applied the caregiver adoption preference (§ 366.26(k)) and denied the grandparents’ § 388 petition; it terminated parental rights and designated the NREFM as prospective adoptive parents.
The Court of Appeal reversed: it held the Agency’s failure to timely assess the relatives triggered the relatives’ right to a § 361.3 placement hearing without requiring a § 388 petition, and remanded for a § 361.3 hearing; it also reversed termination orders as necessarily affected.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the relative-placement preference (§ 361.3) applies when relatives request placement before disposition but the Agency fails to timely assess, even if reunification has ended and no new placement is then required	Grandparents: timely requests for placement entitle them to preferential consideration and a § 361.3 hearing without being forced to file § 388; Agency’s assessment obligation is triggered by the relative’s request	Agency: § 361.3 does not apply after reunification when no new placement is necessary; the court properly considered caregiver-adoption preference	Held: § 361.3 applies; when a relative requests placement prior to dispositional hearing and the Agency fails to timely assess, the relative is entitled to a § 361.3 hearing without filing § 388; court erred in declining to apply § 361.3
Whether the court’s failure to apply § 361.3 (and instead applying caregiver adoption preference) was harmless error	Grandparents: Agency’s delays and misrepresentations prevented timely § 361.3 consideration; factors under § 361.3 could produce a different outcome	Agency: error harmless because the juvenile court’s best-interest findings would produce the same outcome and stability should be preserved	Held: Error was not harmless; the court must apply the statutory § 361.3 factors (not a generalized best-interest test); remand for a § 361.3 hearing is required

In re Stephanie M., 7 Cal.4th 295 (1994) (legislative command that relatives be assessed and considered favorably subject to child’s best interests)
Cesar V. v. Superior Court, 91 Cal.App.4th 1023 (2001) (relative seeking placement must be first considered and investigated)
In re Joseph T., Jr., 163 Cal.App.4th 787 (2008) (§ 361.3 procedures apply after disposition even when no new placement is required)
In re R.T., 232 Cal.App.4th 1284 (2015) (agency’s failure to evaluate relatives before disposition can require § 361.3 relief when relatives invoked preference earlier)
In re Lauren R., 148 Cal.App.4th 841 (2007) (distinguishable where permanent plan already selected before relative’s request)
In re Sarah S., 43 Cal.App.4th 274 (1996) (denial of a late relative placement claim affirmed where relative had abandoned care and misled court)
People v. Watson, 46 Cal.2d 818 (1956) (harmless error standard)