In re J.M. CA4/1

INTRODUCTION

Maternal aunt T.S. (Aunt T.), appeals an order denying her request for placement of minor J.M. with a permanent plan of adoption after the termination of the parents’ reunification services and immediately before the court selected a permanent plan for the child. She contends the juvenile court abused its discretion in denying her request for placement and erred in determining that the relative placement preference under Welfare and

Institutions Code1 section 361.3 did not apply at the late stage of this case. The San Diego County Health and Human Services Agency (Agency) supports Aunt T.’s position. To.S. and Ta.S. (Caregivers) disagree. They contend the court correctly determined the relative placement preference did not apply and it was not in J.M.’s best interests under section 388 to change placement. They further contend that even if the relative placement preference did apply, the court properly determined that placement with Aunt T. was not appropriate after considering the factors set forth in section 361.3. We agree with the Caregivers that the court did not abuse its discretion in denying Aunt T.’s request for placement. We, therefore, affirm the…