California is failing to notify relatives when a child enters foster care

When a child enters foster care, welfare agencies are supposed to contact relatives so that if there is a safe placement possible with a sibling or parent of one of the child’s parents, the child can live with them rather than a nonrelative. Unfortunately, despite specific guidance passed by the California Legislature in 2009, relatives in California are often not informed.

According to new research from Advokids, a California nonprofit that provides legal help to anyone concerned about a foster child in the state, more than three-quarters of relatives are not receiving notification about entries into foster care. This despite the fact that these family members are often easily located — and that federal law requires them to be identified and notified within 30 days of a child’s removal.

In July 2024, Alameda County’s child welfare agency called Stina, a newly licensed foster parent, about Baby G., who was born several weeks premature and substance exposed. G.’s mother was homeless and didn’t want to raise the child. Stina began asking questions immediately after bringing her home from the NICU about whether G.’s other relatives might want to step in. She also had a brother who had already been adopted. Maybe that child’s parents wanted to adopt this baby? Caseworkers assured Stina that no one had come forward. So five months later, Stina was surprised when a worker suggested that the child’s great-aunt might be interested and that Stina should send some pictures. For months, the agency and the court continued to pursue the termination of the birth mother’s parental rights so that Stina could adopt G. The aunt came to meet G. when she was a year old, though, and then stated she wanted custody.

A months-long court battle ensued. “I’m all for reunification,” Stina tells me. But there comes a point where there is trauma in removing a child from the home she has come to know. Why didn’t the aunt come forward sooner? She says the letter went to her late husband. The county said they did a thorough search, but Stina is skeptical. After all, the adoptive parents of G.’s biological brother also received no notification until Stina suggested that G.’s attorney reach out to them. Given that they had already fostered and adopted in the state, it would have been easy to locate them.

In a different case, Clarice tells me she was surprised that no agency reached out to anyone in her close-knit extended family when her cousin’s son, Baby A., was placed in foster care. A number of her aunts and uncles and cousins are employees of the state. Clarice was able to track down the caseworker in charge of that child, only after six months of stonewalling from different county agencies. By the time she found A., a younger sister had been born and was taken into foster care. Clarice and her husband raced to get certified as foster parents for both children, but the state gave custody of A. to the nonrelative who had been caring for him for a year.

California’s county child welfare agencies are tasked with family finding. They are required by law to send family members Form JV-285, which allows a child’s relatives or close family friend to provide information to juvenile dependency courts regarding a child who has been removed from their home. They can provide information to the court about the child’s daily life or medical needs or educational progress. And they can also request placement or visitation with the child. The form is supposed to be accompanied by a letter explaining the child’s situation. This guidance has been in place for so long that the letter instructs that if you are calling the agency “long-distance, you may make the call a ‘collect call.’”

The letter tells the recipient to respond immediately, noting that failure to do so may result in becoming ineligible for custody. This is key because we want children in foster care to be able to experience safety and stability. It is not uncommon for relatives to come along a year or longer after a child has been in a stable foster placement and ask for custody. Some courts will separate the child from their new home in the name of placing them with kin. The abiding principle of foster care must be to cast a wide net quickly, figure out which placement (whether a relative or nonrelative) is best for the child, and then support placement in that home until reunification or another permanent option.

Margaret Coyne, the head of Advokids, started asking the relatives who contacted her organization for help whether they had ever received the JV-285 and was shocked to find out how few did. This year, the organization surveyed hundreds of relatives of children who were in foster care in California between January 2024 and October 2026. Of the 250 completed responses, 77% had never received the form.

Other states have noticed this problem and attempted to solve it. Georgia passed legislation in 2019 that requires the agencies to update the court on kin-finding efforts and also gives relatives six months from the date they are informed to declare their interest in taking in the child. Arizona passed something similar. Congress continues to fund “kinship navigator” programs to help relatives access services once a child is placed with them. But the navigator cannot help an aunt who does not know her niece is in foster care. Federal oversight of state compliance with this requirement has always been weak, and levers have grown weaker still even as the current administration talks up placing children with kin.

Advokids started working with Placer County to improve its family finding. This past year the county increased its JV-285 court filings from 10 to 114. As Coyne notes, “This means that the court and all of the parties are noticed that a relative has come forward, when they came forward, and what their intentions are.” The form “serves as an accountability tool for all.”

Clarice has been able to adopt A.’s younger sister, but she is still looking for the state’s records about A. In court, lawyers for the agency insisted they had done their due diligence, but there is no evidence any JV-285 forms were sent. Clarice thinks A.’s foster family is “amazing” but is devastated that the siblings will grow up apart. She also worries that A. “would ever think ‘why did you try to adopt her and not me?’” She wants him to know she did everything she could. If only the state of California had too.

Naomi Schaefer Riley is a senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute.