AB 1846 requires county social workers and dependency courts to give preferential consideration to relatives who request placement when children are removed from parental custody under Section 361, explicitly stating that relatives’ immigration status does not bar that consideration. The bill lists specific factors for assessing relative suitability — from the child’s best interests and sibling placement to the relative’s ability to provide a stable home and any history of violence or abuse — and directs emergency screening under Section 361.4 before placing a child in a relative’s home.
The statute also adds procedural obligations: courts must state on the record why a considered relative was denied placement, may later order placement if clear and convincing evidence supports it, and must follow Indian Child Welfare Act preferences. For children from disrupted adoptions, the department and licensed adoption agencies may search for and share identifying information with relatives when no appropriate adoptive-family caretaker is available.
The bill shifts where dependency systems must prioritize kinship while preserving safety-based exclusions and existing placement frameworks like the Interstate Compact and ICWA.
At a Glance
What It Does
The bill requires that relatives be the first placement considered and investigated when a child is removed from parents, regardless of the relative’s immigration status, and enumerates specific suitability factors and emergency assessment requirements under Section 361.4.
Who It Affects
County child welfare agencies, dependency courts, relatives (including undocumented relatives and nonrelative extended family), licensed adoption agencies, and practitioners handling placements for disrupted adoptions and Indian children.
Why It Matters
This changes placement practice by elevating kinship as the default starting point for investigations and adds procedural duties for courts and agencies — increasing administrative workload while potentially shortening time to family-based placements and preserving family ties.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
AB 1846 rewrites how counties approach placement when a child is removed under Section 361: relatives who request placement become the first placements investigated. The bill lists a compact set of evaluative factors courts and social workers must consider — the child’s best interests, sibling placement, the relative’s moral character and criminal history, the nature of the relationship with the child, and the relative’s practical ability to provide a stable home, protect the child, and support reunification or legal permanency.
It also instructs courts to consider family-code relative-placement provisions and mandates that county social workers document outreach and assessment efforts in the social study.
For emergency placements, AB 1846 ties permissibility to the safety assessment process already in Section 361.4, and it expressly prevents immigration status from disqualifying a relative. The statute also addresses physical disabilities: it declares that disabilities alone (for example, blindness or deafness) do not disqualify a relative; instead, assessors must focus on whether the disability actually prevents the relative from exercising care and control.
While relatives get preferential consideration, the bill makes clear that this preference is procedural — not automatic — and preserves safety-based exclusions and court discretion.Procedurally, the bill requires the court to put on the record why it denied or delayed placement with a considered relative; it also allows the agency to recommend placement after a Section 358 or 388 hearing and mandates that the court order placement when it finds by clear and convincing evidence that relative placement is in the child’s best interest. The law permits later placement changes if a better relative placement is identified or other circumstances warrant, and it preserves the use of the Interstate Compact on the Placement of Children when placements cross state lines.Finally, AB 1846 creates a narrow authority for the department and licensed adoption agencies to locate and share identifying information with relatives for children whose adoptions have disrupted or been set aside, provided no appropriate adoptive-family caretaker exists and the child was not voluntarily relinquished.
The bill also reiterates that placement of Indian children must follow the placement preferences in Section 361.31, maintaining ICWA compliance.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The bill requires that any relative who requests placement must be the first placement considered and investigated (defined as “preferential consideration”).
Immigration status cannot be used to bar a relative from preferential consideration for placement.
Emergency placement with a relative is contingent on an assessment under Section 361.4; the statute expressly bars disqualification based solely on physical disability.
If the court declines or delays placing with a considered relative, it must state on the record why placement was denied or delayed; a later order can still place the child if the court finds by clear and convincing evidence that relative placement is in the child’s best interest.
For children whose adoptions have disrupted or been set aside, the department and licensed adoption agencies may search for and share identifying information with relatives when no appropriate adoptive-family caretaker is available and the child was not voluntarily relinquished.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Preferential consideration and enumerated suitability factors
This section establishes that relatives who request placement must receive preferential consideration and lists the factors the county social worker and court must weigh. Practically, that means the social study and initial investigation must address the child’s best interests (including special needs), sibling placement, relationship history, and the relative household’s safety and moral character. Agencies must integrate these factors into eligibility screening and home studies rather than treating kinship as a background consideration.
Emergency assessment, safety standards, and non‑discrimination on disability
The bill conditions emergency placement in a relative’s home on the safety assessment process the Legislature assigned to Section 361.4. It also adds a legislative declaration that physical disability alone is not a bar to raising children and instructs assessors to focus on whether the disability prevents care and control. Implementation will require assessors to document functional limitations rather than rely on categorical exclusion, which changes the evaluative posture of emergency screening teams.
Worker contact, disclosure authority, and documentation
County social workers must contact relatives given preferential consideration to determine their interest and assess those who want placement; efforts must be documented in the social study under Section 358.1. While workers may disclose that the child is in custody, the reasons, and projected timelines to relatives during assessment, the statute clarifies that such disclosure cannot be used as grounds to continue the dispositional hearing, tightening the window for outreach while preserving necessary case information sharing.
Multiple relatives, provisional placements, and definitions
When several relatives request consideration, each must be assessed under the enumerated factors. The statute explicitly allows the county to place a child temporarily with a relative or nonrelative extended family member while other relatives are evaluated — reflecting a practical tension between immediacy and thorough vetting. The bill defines key terms: “preferential consideration” (first investigated) and “relative” (blood, adoption, affinity within five degrees, including stepparents, stepsiblings, and spouses).
Post‑hearing placements, record requirement, and clear‑and‑convincing orders
After the Section 358 hearing, any new placement must again consider relatives who were not found unsuitable and who meet reunification or permanency needs, with attention to whether they’ve maintained a relationship with the child. If the court declines initial placement, it must state its reasons on the record; conversely, if the agency recommends and the court finds by clear and convincing evidence that placement with a relative is in the child’s best interest, the court must order placement. The bill also allows later placement changes when a more appropriate relative is identified, without necessitating a new petition under Sections 358 or 388.
Search and information sharing for disrupted adoptions
If a child who was previously a dependent has had an adoption disrupted, set aside, or the adoptive parents have released custody, the department and licensed adoption agencies may search for relatives and provide identifying information if doing so promotes the child’s welfare. This authority applies only when no appropriate potential caretaker is known in the adoptive family and the child was not voluntarily relinquished, expanding the agency’s kin‑search role in a narrow class of post‑adoption cases.
Indian child placement conformity
The statute affirms that placements of Indian children must comply with the placement preferences in Section 361.31, maintaining alignment with Indian Child Welfare Act requirements and preserving tribal placement priorities in cases involving Native children.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on Social Services across all five countries.
Explore Social Services in Codify Search →Who Benefits and Who Bears the Cost
Every bill creates winners and losers. Here's who stands to gain and who bears the cost.
Who Benefits
- Relatives (including undocumented relatives): The bill guarantees they will be the first placements investigated when they request it, increasing their chance to keep children in family settings and preserving kinship ties.
- Children in dependency: Prioritizing relatives can shorten time in nonfamily foster care, keep siblings together, and improve continuity of care, particularly for children with special needs who benefit from known caregivers.
- Children from disrupted adoptions: The department’s authority to search for birth or extended relatives provides an additional permanency pathway when adoptive-family caretakers are unavailable.
- Relatives with disabilities: By prohibiting disability as a categorical bar and requiring functional assessment, the bill expands opportunities for disabled relatives who can safely parent.
Who Bears the Cost
- County child welfare agencies: Agencies must do more outreach, conduct more home assessments (including emergency safety screens under Section 361.4), and document efforts in social studies, increasing administrative and staffing burdens.
- Dependency courts: Judges and court staff must place reasons on the record when denying or delaying relative placements and make or evaluate clear‑and‑convincing findings, adding to hearing complexity and preparation time.
- Nonrelative foster caregivers and group homes: If relatives are investigated and prioritized, demand for nonrelative placements may decline, affecting providers who rely on placements and reimbursement.
- Licensed adoption agencies: Agencies tasked with searching for relatives after adoption disruptions may face increased workload and potential legal/privacy concerns when sharing identifying information.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The bill balances two legitimate priorities that pull in opposite directions: preserving children’s family and kinship ties by prioritizing relative placement (including undocumented or disabled relatives) versus protecting children’s safety and achieving timely, stable permanency through careful vetting; reconciling the need for expedited family placements with thorough, consistent safety assessments is the statute’s central dilemma.
AB 1846 shifts placement practice toward kin first, but it leaves several implementation questions open that could affect outcomes. First, the bill requires emergency placements to pass the Section 361.4 assessment, yet it also emphasizes immediate placement with relatives; counties will need clear protocols to reconcile the need for speed with safety vetting.
Second, the non‑discrimination language around disability moves assessment from categorical rules to functional inquiries, which improves fairness but raises the risk of inconsistent decisionmaking unless counties adopt standardized functional assessment tools and training.
The statute’s record requirement — that courts state reasons when they deny or delay relative placement — increases transparency but may also drive more adversarial litigation and lengthen hearings as parties contest the sufficiency of the court’s rationale. Allowing later placement changes when a ‘better’ relative is identified preserves flexibility but may create placement instability for children and administrative churn.
Finally, the authority to search for relatives in disrupted-adoption cases expands agency powers but raises privacy and data‑sharing questions; agencies will need policies balancing welfare interests with safeguarding sensitive adoption records. Interactions with the Interstate Compact and ICWA are preserved but can produce jurisdictional and procedural complexity in cross‑border or tribal cases.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.