AB 562 requires social workers to prioritize keeping children with family when a child is taken into temporary custody. It creates an immediate presumption that the child be released to a parent, guardian, Indian custodian, or relative regardless of immigration status unless one of six narrowly drawn safety or legal exceptions applies.
The bill also tightens procedures for emergency kin placements and family finding: counties must assess relatives for emergency placement, require relatives placed to apply for resource-family approval within five business days, provide written notice to located adult relatives within 30 days, use specific family-finding techniques (including computer searches and tribal contact for Indian children), and begin an annual county-level data review comparing relative-placement rates to statewide averages with mandatory engagement with a Center for Excellence where performance lags. These changes reallocate responsibilities and create new timelines and reporting duties for county welfare agencies and the State Department of Social Services.
At a Glance
What It Does
The bill makes release to family the default when a child is taken into temporary custody, lists six exceptions that allow detention, and requires social workers to conduct family-finding investigations and notify located adult relatives within 30 days. It authorizes emergency kin placements with an expedited assessment and requires relatives who receive an emergency placement to initiate a resource-family application within five business days.
Who It Affects
County welfare departments and social workers who perform investigations and placements; prospective kin and nonrelative extended family caregivers required to apply for resource-family approval; tribes when an Indian child is involved; and the State Department of Social Services and Judicial Council for notice and form development.
Why It Matters
AB 562 shifts the operational presumption toward kinship placements and imposes concrete deadlines and data-review obligations that will change county staffing, intake and placement workflows, and the interaction between state oversight and tribal placement preferences.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
When a child is taken into temporary custody, AB 562 forces social workers to act quickly to keep the child with family. On delivery to the social worker the statute requires an immediate investigation of circumstances and an attempt to provide services that would allow the child to remain with family.
The bill presumes the child be released to the parent, guardian, Indian custodian, or a relative, without regard to immigration status, unless the situation meets one of six exceptions tied to absence of willing relatives, immediate safety needs, risk of flight, prior placement conduct, or voluntary surrender under Health and Safety Code Section 1255.7.
If the child cannot be released, the statute creates a clear pathway for emergency kin placements. A relative or qualifying nonrelative who requests emergency placement must be assessed under the existing Section 361.4 procedure and may receive an emergency placement pending the detention or dispositional hearing.
If placed, the relative must submit a resource-family application and begin the home environment assessment no later than five business days after placement. The county must also help relatives obtain essential physical items (cribs, car seats, etc.) when lack of those items is the only barrier to placement and the department will issue guidance on these “reasonable efforts” expectations.The bill sets explicit family-finding and notification obligations.
Within 30 days after removal, social workers must investigate and attempt to identify and locate grandparents, parents of siblings, adult siblings, and other adult relatives (and for Indian children, extended family and tribal contacts). Located adult relatives generally must receive written notice within 30 days that explains placement and care options, potential lost opportunities if they do not respond, and specific program information (Kin-GAP, CalWORKs, adoption assistance, visitation).
The Judicial Council will create a relative-information form so relatives can provide information to the court and request permission to address the court.AB 562 adds operational and oversight requirements for counties and the state. Counties must adopt a procedure allowing parents and relatives to identify themselves and must tell the State Department whether they adopted family-finding practices described in All-County Letter 18-42 (by a date reflected in the statute).
Beginning January 1, 2027, counties must annually compare their rate of placing children with relatives (and placement preferences for Indian children) to the statewide average; if a county falls below that average, the county welfare director must contact the Center for Excellence in Family Finding, Engagement, and Support to identify adoptable best practices and engage with that center on a prescribed quarterly cadence until improvements are pursued. The statute explicitly defines “family finding” to include computer-based searches and tribal contact for Indian children.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The statute presumes immediate release of a child in temporary custody to a parent, guardian, Indian custodian, or relative regardless of immigration status, unless one of six exceptions (e.g.
no willing relative, immediate safety need, risk of flight) applies.
Counties must locate and provide written notice to identified adult relatives within 30 days of removal; the notice must explain placement options, support programs (Kin-GAP, CalWORKs, adoption assistance), and how to become a resource family.
A relative or qualifying nonrelative who receives an emergency placement must begin the resource-family application and home environment assessment no later than five business days after placement; tribes’ licensing/approval can substitute for county approval for Indian children.
If lack of basic items (cribs, car seats, etc.) is the only barrier to placement, the agency must use reasonable efforts to help the relative obtain those items and the department will issue guidance on this requirement.
Starting January 1, 2027, each county must annually compare its relative-placement rate to the statewide average and, if below the average, initiate and maintain consultations with the Center for Excellence in Family Finding, beginning by December 1 of the review year and occurring at least quarterly thereafter.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Immediate investigation and presumption of release to family
This subsection requires the social worker, upon receiving a child taken into temporary custody, to immediately investigate and to try to keep the child with family via services. It creates a presumption that the child be released to a parent, guardian, Indian custodian, or relative regardless of immigration status, and it enumerates six narrow exceptions (no willing relative, urgent safety need with no reasonable protective alternatives, specific protections for Indian children, risk of flight, child having left a prior court-ordered placement, or unreclaimed voluntary surrender under Health and Safety Code Section 1255.7). Practically, this raises the default for release and forces social workers to document the basis for any detention under one of the listed exceptions.
Medical custody and detention status
These clauses treat a child who is medically unable to be moved as having been taken into temporary custody and delivered to the social worker for purposes of the chapter, and they define the status of a child not released to a parent or guardian as detained. That framing closes any statutory gap for children in hospitals or clinics and clarifies when detention procedures (hearings, timelines) must begin, which has downstream effects for timelines and court involvement.
Emergency kin placement assessment and transition to resource-family approval
This subsection authorizes emergency placement with a relative, extended family member of an Indian child, or nonrelative extended family member if they request it and are assessed under Section 361.4. It requires counties to complete an assessment allowing emergency placement and then to proceed to evaluate and approve or deny the home under Section 16519.5; for tribal-approved homes for Indian children, the county approval step does not apply. Importantly, the county must require the caregiver to submit a resource-family application and start the home assessment within five business days after placement, which compresses the timeline for background checks, documentation, and initial training where applicable.
Reasonable-efforts assistance and family-finding obligations
The statute requires counties to use reasonable efforts to provide necessary physical items if lack of those items is the single barrier to emergency placement and instructs the State Department to issue guidance on those efforts. It further mandates that social workers conduct a family-finding investigation within 30 days of removal to identify grandparents, parents of siblings, adult siblings, and other relatives (and, for Indian children, extended family and tribal contacts), and to provide written notice and a relative information form. The notice content and the form are to be developed by the State Department and Judicial Council in consultation with county and stakeholder groups.
County procedures, reporting, and data review with the Center for Excellence
Counties must publish a procedure for parents and relatives to identify themselves and must inform the State Department whether they adopted family-finding practices described in All-County Letter 18-42. Beginning January 1, 2027, each county must annually review relative-placement rates (using data ending July 1 of the prior year) against statewide averages; if the county rate is below the statewide average, the county welfare director must begin communications with the Center for Excellence by December 1 and continue at least three more times quarterly. The statute specifies acceptable modes of communication (email, phone, video conference) and embeds an accountability loop intended to spread best practices.
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
- Children removed from their homes — the bill increases the chance a child will be placed with relatives quickly, preserving family connections and cultural continuity, especially for Indian children where tribal-approved homes may take precedence.
- Relatives and nonrelative extended family members — they receive prioritized consideration for emergency placement, assistance with basic items when needed, and clearer information about supports (Kin-GAP, CalWORKs, adoption assistance) and pathways to become resource-family caregivers.
- Tribes and Indian children — the statute affirms tribal role by requiring tribes be contacted during family finding and by allowing tribal licensing/approval to substitute for county approval for Indian-child placements.
- County programs that already use proven family-finding practices — those counties may see improved placement metrics and will have a ready framework to formalize and share practices via the Center for Excellence.
Who Bears the Cost
- County welfare departments and social workers — they must absorb added administrative work (30-day investigations, notices, five-business-day application windows, public procedures for self-identification, annual data reviews, and regular communications with the Center for Excellence) and may need more staff or reallocation of resources.
- State Department of Social Services and Judicial Council — required to develop the written notice, produce guidance on reasonable efforts, and create the relative information form, tasks that require drafting, stakeholder consultation, and dissemination.
- Prospective kin caregivers — while they gain priority placement, they must meet resource-family licensing requirements and complete application steps within a compressed timeframe, which may impose out-of-pocket costs unless counties provide supports.
- County budgets — if counties must supply basic items or expand outreach and data-management capacity, the statute creates unfunded (or at least unspecified) costs that counties will need to cover or seek state funds for.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
AB 562's central dilemma is reconciling a strong presumption in favor of family placement with the real-world constraints of child safety, administrative capacity, and funding: it pushes for faster, kin-first placements (and robust family finding) but leaves counties to balance speed against thorough safety vetting and to do so without dedicated new resources.
The bill forces a practical trade-off between accelerating kinship placements and ensuring thorough safety assessments. Requiring emergency placement and a five-business-day start for resource-family applications pushes counties to compress background checks, home-environment assessments, and caregiver training; without additional funding or streamlined processes, counties may face delays or need to rely on provisional approvals that carry safety and liability concerns.
The statutory direction to assist with basic items if they're the sole barrier is a pragmatic fix but its effectiveness depends on whether counties have consistent access to funds or community partners to supply those items.
The family-finding mandate includes language permitting computer-based searches to locate relatives. That technique improves reach but raises privacy and accuracy issues (false leads, contact of estranged or abusive relatives) and is particularly sensitive for Indian children given tribal sovereignty and confidentiality norms.
The statute partially addresses tribal concerns—delegating tribal approvals for placements—but implementation will require careful coordination and clear information-sharing protocols. The reporting and accountability mechanism (annual county comparison to statewide averages and engagement with the Center for Excellence) sets a performance target but risks incentivizing metrics-driven placements: counties may prioritize numeric improvement over case-by-case judgments unless performance reviews are paired with qualitative oversight and resources.
Finally, the statute includes specific dated reporting steps (for example, a requirement to notify the State Department whether a county adopted practices described in All-County Letter 18-42 by January 1, 2024) that do not align cleanly with the bill’s enactment date and with the later start of the annual review (January 1, 2027). Those calendar mismatches create implementation ambiguity.
The bill also does not specify new funding streams, enforcement penalties for noncompliance, or dispute-resolution processes when relatives contest placements—questions counties and courts will have to resolve operationally.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.