Rule 5.722.Twenty-four-month subsequent 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 5.722 governs the twenty-four-month subsequent permanency review, and requires the court to state the factual basis for any finding that return would be a risk of detriment.

Full Text of Rule 5.722

Text size

(a) Determinations and conduct of hearing (§§ 309(e), 366, 366.1, 366.25)

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 366.25 and as follows:

(1) The requirements in rule 5.708(c) must be followed in entering a reasonable services finding.

(2) If the court does not order the return of the child to the custody of the parent or legal guardian, the court must specify the factual basis for its finding of risk of detriment.

(3) The court may order that the name and address of the foster home remain confidential. The court and all parties must comply with all relevant requirements, procedures, findings, and orders related to section 366.26 hearings in rule 5.708(h)–(j).

(4) 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

(5) 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 last of the scheduled permanency reviews runs on the general review rule and proceeds under its own statute, with five additions.

The reasonable services finding follows the general rule. If the court does not return the child, it must specify the factual basis for its finding of risk of detriment — not merely make the finding. The court may order the foster home’s name and address kept confidential, and where a permanency hearing is in view, the general rule’s requirements, procedures, findings and orders on setting one apply.

For an Indian child who is not returned, the tribal customary adoption determinations apply: whether the agency consulted the tribe, 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 paired relative findings apply, each with an order attached where the answer is no.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is different about the twenty-four-month review?

If the court does not order the child returned, it must specify the factual basis for its finding of risk of detriment — the finding alone is not enough.

Which rules govern setting a permanency hearing at this stage?

The requirements, procedures, findings and orders in rule 5.708(h)–(j) — including the notice requirement, the writ petition advisements, and the limit on setting a hearing against one parent alone.

Do the relative and tribal findings still apply?

Yes. For an Indian child not returned, the tribal customary adoption determinations; and where services are terminated, the findings on diligent efforts to locate relatives and on evaluating each relative submitted as a possible caregiver.

Amendment History

Rule 5.722 amended effective January 1, 2017; adopted effective January 1, 2010; previously amended effective July 1, 2010.

(Subd (a) relettered and amended effective January 1, 2017; adopted as subd (b); previously amended effective July 1, 2010.)

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: twenty-four month subsequent permanency review Californiasection 366.25 review hearingfactual basis risk of detriment findingsubsequent permanency review hearing