Nonminor dependents: county of residence.

Assembly Member Lee, with principal coauthor Assembly Member Davies, advances a measure that would authorize transferring a nonminor dependent’s case to a different county upon the dependent’s request and a court finding that the transfer serves the nonminor’s best interests. The core change is the introduction of a cross-county transfer mechanism for nonminors who remain under juvenile court jurisdiction after age 18, with a transfer order to be issued within 30 court days of the request and the receiving county to gain jurisdiction within 10 calendar days after the order, while ensuring that transfer considerations are addressed during relevant review hearings.

The proposed framework builds on the existing residence-determination rules by retaining the current criteria for establishing a county of residence—such as continuous physical presence and expressed intent to remain—while adding a separate pathway to move jurisdiction. The measure would require review hearings for nonminors to consider whether a transfer to a new county is appropriate and would expand the content of required review reports to reflect transfer-related considerations, including access to services, permanency planning, and the nonminor’s transitional independent living plan. The updates would apply to the last pre-18 review and all subsequent reviews, including cases involving reunification services and planning for postsecondary education and independent living.

Section 3 codifies the explicit cross-county transfer framework for nonminors, detailing two routes to transfer: (i) continuation of the existing residence-determination framework, and (ii) a transfer based on a best-interest finding after the nonminor requests the transfer and the court weighs a set of criteria. The criteria include whether the transfer would enhance access to services, the positions of the social worker or tribal worker and, if applicable, the probation officer; whether the nonminor would qualify as a resident of the new county; whether the nonminor has established significant connections in the new county (employment, housing, education, or supportive relationships); and whether the nonminor is involved in a separate dependency case in the new county. If the transfer is ordered under route (ii), the receiving county would gain jurisdiction within 10 days. The measure also references transfer provisions tied to Section 388 petitions and clarifies procedural steps, including timelines for issuing transfer orders and for the new county to assume jurisdiction.

Implementation and policy context considerations emphasize coordination across counties, tribal and cross-agency collaboration, and the need for updated Judicial Council forms and rules to operationalize the transfer process. The text indicates no new state appropriation is attached to the measure, though counties and the judiciary would bear administrative costs related to transfer processing, data sharing, and adjustments to permanency and education-support services. The proposal maintains the existing residence-determination framework while adding a structured mechanism to relocate jurisdiction when it aligns with the nonminor’s services and permanency goals, signaling a shift toward greater county-level flexibility in aligning resources with individual transition pathways.