In Re Sarah S.

Vincent W. Davis, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Interveners and Appellants.

De Witt W. Clinton, County Counsel, Joe Ben Hudgens, Principal Deputy County Counsel, Gary P. Gross, Carrie Clarke, Jones, Day, Reavis & Pogue, Elwood Lui and Laura A. Matz for Plaintiff and Respondent.

Tisha Harmon for Interveners and Respondents.

OPINION

VOGEL (Miriam A.), J.

We hold in this case that the statutory preference for placement of a dependent child with a relative (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 361.3) [1] does not apply to a placement made as part of a permanent plan for adoption. Once the juvenile court determines that reunification efforts have failed, the only statutory preference in the adoption process is for a "relative caretaker or foster parent" as provided in subdivision (k) of section 366.26.

In January 1993, the Department of Children and Family Services took 15-month-old Sarah S. into protective custody. In March, the juvenile court found that Sarah's mother (Brenda S.) and father (John B.) were unable to care for Sarah, [2] declared Sarah to be a dependent of the court and, in May, placed Sarah with her maternal grandfather, Edmund S., Sr., and Edmund's wife,…