Rule 5.708.General review hearing requirements

This is the backbone rule. The four review hearings that follow it each say "comply with rule 5.708" and then add their own specifics, so what is here applies at every review.

Notice goes out on form JV-280 to everyone entitled to it and to any CASA volunteer, educational rights holder or surrogate parent on the case.

Before the hearing the social worker investigates and files a report describing the services offered, the progress made and, where relevant, the prognosis for returning the child. It must carry recommendations with reasons, a description of the efforts to achieve legal permanence if reunification fails, and a factual discussion of each statutory item — including the sibling placement requirements. It is filed at least 10 calendar days before the hearing, with copies to the parent and their counsel, the child’s counsel, any CASA volunteer and, for an Indian child, the tribe; foster parents, relative caregivers and certified foster parents approved for adoption get a summary of the recommendations. The court must read and consider all of it — the report, any CASA report, the case plan, any caregiver report, and any other evidence — and say on the record that it has.

Two findings are mandatory whenever the child is not returned. The court must consider whether reasonable services were offered or provided and find expressly that they were or were not. And it must consider the child’s safety and make the statutory findings.

Education is on the agenda at every review. The court considers the educational and developmental-services needs of each child and nonminor, decides whether to limit a parent’s decisionmaking rights, and — if it does, or if a nonminor has chosen not to decide for themselves or been deemed incompetent and appointment serves their best interests — appoints a responsible adult as educational rights holder. Any limitation must be specified in the order.

The case plan findings come in pairs, and each pair carries a remedy. Either the plan meets the statutory requirements or it does not, in which case the court orders compliance. Either the child was actively involved in developing the plan and the permanent placement plan, as age and development allow, or they were not — and then the court orders the agency to involve them, unless the child is unable, unavailable or unwilling. The same pair applies to each parent or guardian. For an Indian child, either the agency consulted the tribe and the tribe was actively involved — including consideration of tribal customary adoption as a permanent plan if reunification fails — or it did not, and the court orders it done. And for a child of 12 or older in a permanent placement, either they were given the chance to review the plan, sign it and receive a copy, or the court orders that chance given.

The court must also determine whether the child has siblings under its jurisdiction and make the additional sibling determinations, plus any other findings the statutes require.

Where the child is placed with a noncustodial parent — now or earlier — the court may, after stating the factual basis on the record or in writing, continue supervision and reunification services; order custody to that parent with continued supervision and family maintenance services; or order custody, terminate jurisdiction, and direct that a final custody order be prepared.

Two limits close the rule. A permanency hearing may not be set against one parent alone unless that parent is the only surviving parent, the other parent’s rights have been terminated, or the other parent has relinquished custody to the county. And when such a hearing is set, the court must ensure statutory notice and must follow the writ petition rules on rights, advisements and forms — because an appeal of that order is limited by statute and runs through the appellate rules.