AB 1846 California Assembly · 2025-2026 Regular Session

Dependency: placement of child with relative.

Summary

Existing law establishes the jurisdiction of the juvenile court, which may adjudge a child to be a dependent of the court under certain circumstances, including when the child suffered, or there is a substantial risk that the child will suffer, serious physical harm, or a parent fails to provide the child with adequate food, clothing, shelter, or medical treatment. Existing law establishes the grounds for removal of a dependent child from the custody of their parents or guardian, and establishes procedures to determine placement of a child. Existing law requires, when a child has been adjudged a dependent of the court, the court to hold a dispositional hearing to determine the disposition to be made of the child. Under existing law, if the child is removed from the physical custody of their parents, preferential consideration to be given to a request by a relative of the child for placement of the child with the relative. Existing law prescribes factors for the county social worker and court to consider in determining placement, and requires the court to state on the record the reasons placement was denied if the court does not place the child with a relative who has been considered for placement. This bill would require, if the court does not initially place the child with a relative who has been considered for placement, the court to state for the record the reasons why the placement with that relative was denied or delayed. The bill would require, except as specified, after the court conducts the dispositional hearing, the social worker to assess any relative who requests placement and who has not been previously assessed or found to be unsuitable. The bill would require, if the court has terminated reunification services prior to the relative's request for placement, the county social worker and the court to consider certain additional factors to consider in determining whether placement with the relative is appropriate, including, among others, the child's relationship with the current caregiver. By increasing the duties of county social workers, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program. The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement. This bill would provide that no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason.

Bill status passed both 4 of 5 stages cleared

Introduction

Feb 2026

Committee Review

Aug 2026

Assembly Passage

Apr 2026

Senate Passage

Aug 2026

Governor

Introduced Feb 11, 2026 Last action Aug 28, 2026

Maddy AI version diff · 3 comparisons

What changed between versions

03/18/26 - Amended Assembly → 08/13/26 - Amended Senate · 9 edits · Aug 13, 2026

MAJOR

The Senate amended AB 1846 by removing a mandatory placement provision that would have required courts to order placement with a relative when the agency recommended it and the court found by clear and convincing evidence it was in the child's best interest. The Senate also added a qualifier limiting when a child's placement preference is considered, gave courts new authority to order assessments when social workers decline, and narrowed the trigger for social worker assessment duties. These changes make the bill less prescriptive about relative placement outcomes while adding procedural safeguards.

REQUIREMENT

Removed the provision requiring courts to order placement with a relative when the child welfare agency recommends it and the court finds by clear and convincing evidence that such placement is in the child's best interest. This was a strong mandate that would have limited judicial discretion.

Removed the provision stating that a relative placement does not prevent the agency from recommending a placement change to another relative under the Interstate Compact on the Placement of Children without requiring a new petition under Section 358 or 388.

Changed the trigger for social worker assessment of relatives from a general duty to assess 'any relative who requests placement' to a more specific standard: when a relative 'requests to be assessed for placement of the child.' Also added that assessment must be done 'in accordance with the factors described in this section.'

Changed the entity responsible for complying with Section 309 requirements from 'the social worker' to 'the county child welfare agency,' and changed the description of those requirements from 'family finding and notice requirements' to 'relative notification requirements.'

ELIGIBILITY

Added qualifier that the child's placement preference is only considered 'if found to be age- and developmentally appropriate,' meaning very young children's stated preferences would not carry weight in placement decisions.

ENFORCEMENT

Added new paragraph (d)(4) allowing the court to order an assessment upon request of any party or the relative if the social worker declines to conduct one under paragraph (3), provided the court determines it is in the child's best interest.

SCOPE

Added new paragraph (d)(5) stating that subdivision (d) does not apply if reunification services were not provided pursuant to subdivision (b) of Section 361.5, creating an exemption for cases where parents were denied reunification services.

DEFINITION

Expanded the Indian child placement provision to explicitly reference the definition in Section 224.1 and the federal Indian Child Welfare Act of 1978 (25 U.S.C. Sec. 1901 et seq.), rather than only referencing Section 361.31.

TECHNICAL

Corrected a citation error in Section 2 from 'Article XIII B' to 'Article XIIIB' (removing an erroneous space).

02/11/26 - Introduced → 03/18/26 - Amended Assembly · 7 edits · Mar 18, 2026

MODERATE

The amendment adds a requirement for social workers to assess relatives who request placement after the dispositional hearing, introduces additional factors to consider when reunification services have already been terminated before a relative's request, and limits the preferential consideration period to before the adoption preference under Section 366.26(k) becomes applicable. The amendment also adds a funding provision tied to the 2011 Realignment Legislation and changes the bill's fiscal committee and state-mandated local program designations from 'no' to 'yes,' indicating the bill now carries new costs for local agencies.

REQUIREMENT

New requirement that after the dispositional hearing, the social worker must assess any relative who requests placement and has not been previously assessed or found unsuitable, until the adoption preference under Section 366.26(k) becomes applicable.

New subdivision (i) clarifies that the section does not prevent the court from ordering placement with a relative after the dispositional hearing or from giving the social worker discretion for a placement change into an appropriate home of a relative.

ELIGIBILITY

When reunification services were terminated before a relative's request for placement, the social worker and court must consider additional factors including the child's relationship with the current caregiver, the child's progress toward permanency with that caregiver, and the child's own placement preference.

An exception allows the social worker discretion (rather than a mandate) to assess a relative if the social worker complied with family finding and notice requirements under Section 309 and the relative's initial request comes after reunification services were terminated. The court may order an assessment upon request if it finds it is in the child's best interests.

SCOPE

The preferential consideration for relative placement is now explicitly limited to the period before the adoption preference in subdivision (k) of Section 366.26 becomes applicable, narrowing the window during which relatives receive priority.

FISCAL

A new Section 2 provides that to the extent the act increases costs already borne by local agencies for programs mandated by the 2011 Realignment Legislation, it applies only to the extent the state provides annual funding. New programs above funded levels do not require state subvention or are subject to Article XIII B Section 6.

Fiscal committee designation changed from 'no' to 'yes' and state-mandated local program designation changed from 'no' to 'yes,' reflecting that the new social worker assessment duties create a state-mandated local program with fiscal impact.

Floor votes · Senate Aug 27, 2026 · Assembly Apr 16, 2026

How they voted

40–0

Passed

Total votes 40

Aug 27, 2026

D Democratic30

30 Yea

100% Yea

R Republican10

10 Yea

100% Yea

Vote distribution

All Yea All Nay Mixed No data

Full legislative history

Actions timeline

Total actions

Key actions

Committee

Amendments

Aug 28, 2026

Lower · Passed

Senate amendments concurred in. To Engrossing and Enrolling. (Ayes 78. Noes 0.).

lower

Aug 27, 2026

Introduced

In Assembly. Concurrence in Senate amendments pending.

lower

Aug 27, 2026

Upper · Passed

Read third time. Passed. Ordered to the Assembly. (Ayes 39. Noes 0.).

upper

Aug 13, 2026

Upper · Passed

Read second time and amended. Ordered returned to second reading.

upper

Aug 13, 2026

Introduced

From committee: Amend, and do pass as amended. (Ayes 7. Noes 0.) (August 13).

upper

Aug 3, 2026

Committee

In committee: Referred to APPR. suspense file.

upper

Jun 29, 2026

Upper · Passed

From committee: Do pass and re-refer to Com. on APPR. with recommendation: To Consent Calendar. (Ayes 5. Noes 0.) (June 29). Re-referred to Com. on APPR.

upper

Jun 10, 2026

Upper · Passed

From committee: Do pass and re-refer to Com. on HUMAN S. with recommendation: To Consent Calendar. (Ayes 12. Noes 0.) (June 9). Re-referred to Com. on HUMAN S.

upper

May 6, 2026

Committee

Referred to Coms. on JUD. and HUMAN S.

upper

Apr 16, 2026

Lower · Passed

Read third time. Passed. Ordered to the Senate. (Ayes 68. Noes 0. Page 4682.)

lower

Apr 8, 2026

Lower · Passed

From committee: Do pass. To Consent Calendar. (Ayes 14. Noes 0.) (April 8).

lower

Mar 25, 2026

Lower · Passed

From committee: Do pass and re-refer to Com. on APPR. with recommendation: To Consent Calendar. (Ayes 7. Noes 0.) (March 24). Re-referred to Com. on APPR.

lower

Mar 19, 2026

Committee

Re-referred to Com. on HUM. S.

lower

Mar 18, 2026

Lower · Passed

Read second time and amended.

lower

Mar 17, 2026

Introduced

From committee: Amend, and do pass as amended and re-refer to Com. on HUM. S. with recommendation: To Consent Calendar. (Ayes 12. Noes 0.) (March 17).

lower

Mar 2, 2026

Committee

Referred to Coms. on JUD. and HUM. S.

lower

Feb 12, 2026

Lower · Passed

From printer. May be heard in committee March 14.

lower

1 primary · 0 co-sponsors