Rule 5.720.Eighteen-month permanency review hearing

Division 3. Juvenile Rules · Chapter 12. Cases Petitioned Under Section 300 · Article 4. Reviews, Permanent Planning · Last amended 2017 · Last verified September 10, 2026

In one sentenceRule 5.720 governs the eighteen-month permanency review hearing, applying the general review requirements plus the tribal and relative findings.

Full Text of Rule 5.720

Text size

(a) Determinations and conduct of hearing (§§ 309(e), 361.5, 366.22)

At the hearing the court and all parties must comply with all relevant requirements and procedures in rule 5.708, General review hearing requirements. The court must make all appropriate findings and orders specified in rule 5.708, and proceed under section 366.22 and as follows:

(1) If the court has previously placed or at this hearing places the child with a noncustodial parent, the court must follow the procedures in rule 5.708 (g) and section 361.2.

(2) The court may order that the name and address of the foster home remain confidential.

(3) In the case of an Indian child, if the child is not returned to his or her parent or legal guardian, the court must determine whether:

(A) The agency has consulted the child’s tribe about tribal customary adoption;

(B) The child’s tribe concurs with tribal customary adoption; and

(4) If the child is not returned to his or her parent or legal guardian and the court terminates reunification services, the court must find as follows:

(A) The agency has made diligent efforts to locate an appropriate relative; or

(B) The agency has not made diligent efforts to locate an appropriate relative. If the court makes such a finding, the court must order the agency to make diligent efforts to locate an appropriate relative; and

(C) Each relative whose name has been submitted to the agency as a possible caregiver has been evaluated as an appropriate placement resource; or

(D) Each relative whose name has been submitted to the agency as a possible caregiver has not been evaluated as an appropriate placement resource. If the court makes such a finding, the court must order the agency to evaluate as an appropriate placement resource each relative whose name has been submitted to the agency as a possible caregiver.

End

Plain-English Summary

The eighteen-month hearing runs on the general review rule and proceeds under its own statute, adding the same four items as the twelve-month hearing.

Where the child is placed with a noncustodial parent — now or previously — the noncustodial-parent procedures apply. The court may order the foster home’s name and address kept confidential.

For an Indian child who is not returned, the court determines whether the agency consulted the tribe about tribal customary adoption, whether the tribe concurs, and whether it is an appropriate permanent plan.

And where the child is not returned and reunification services are terminated, the court makes the paired relative findings: whether the agency made diligent efforts to locate an appropriate relative, and whether each relative submitted as a possible caregiver has been evaluated as a placement resource — ordering the work done where either answer is no.

Frequently Asked Questions

What does the court decide at the eighteen-month review?

Everything the general review rule requires, plus the statutory determinations under section 366.22 — and, where the child is not returned and services are terminated, the findings about diligent efforts to locate and evaluate relatives.

Does the tribal customary adoption inquiry apply here?

Yes. For an Indian child who is not returned to a parent or legal guardian, the court must determine whether the agency consulted the tribe about tribal customary adoption, whether the tribe concurs, and whether it is an appropriate permanent plan.

What happens if relatives were never properly evaluated?

The court must so find and order the agency to evaluate as an appropriate placement resource each relative whose name has been submitted as a possible caregiver.

Amendment History

Rule 5.720 amended effective January 1, 2017; repealed and adopted as rule 1462 effective January 1, 1990; previously amended and renumbered effective January 1, 2007; previously amended effective July 1, 1991, January 1, 1992, January 1, 1993, January 1, 1994, January 1, 1995, July 1, 1995, July 1, 1997, January 1, 1999, July 1, 1999, January 1, 2001, January 1, 2005, January 1, 2006, July 1, 2006, July 1, 2007, January 1, 2010, July 1, 2010, January 1, 2014, and January 1, 2015.

(Subd (a) amended and relettered effective January 1, 2017; repealed and adopted as subd (b); previously amended and relettered as subd (c) effective January 1, 2005, and as subd (b) effective January 1, 2010; previously amended effective July 1, 1991, January 1, 1992, January 1, 1993, January 1, 1995, July 1, 1995, January 1, 1999, July 1, 1999, January 1, 2006, July 1, 2006, January 1, 2007, July 1, 2007, July 1, 2010, January 1, 2014, and January 1, 2015.)

Source & verification. Rule text is reproduced verbatim from the Judicial Council of California. Adopted by the Judicial Council of California. Last verified September 10, 2026. · Official source

Also known as: eighteen month permanency review hearing Californiasection 366.22 permanency reviewterminate reunification services eighteen monthsrelative evaluation finding permanency