Reported / Citable
Background
Violet S., a young adult with significant developmental needs, remained an eligible nonminor dependent in extended foster care after turning 18. A regional center provided placement and case-management services, while county child-welfare personnel and appointed counsel supplied additional supervision and advocacy.
The juvenile court terminated dependency jurisdiction because it believed the regional center made county involvement unnecessary and that multiple agencies might be harmful. Violet, her counsel, and her guardian ad litem opposed termination and emphasized the protections supplied by continuing court oversight.
The Court’s Holding
The Court of Appeal reversed and directed immediate reinstatement of jurisdiction. The record showed Violet remained statutorily eligible, and the juvenile court could not convert its view of her best interests into a finding that she was no longer eligible for the program.
The county agency also remained subject to an existing order to supervise and report. Regional-center services did not displace the statutory foster-care framework or eliminate the concrete benefits of a social worker, appointed counsel, a guardian ad litem, and periodic judicial review.
Key Takeaways
- Eligibility requirements, not a generalized best-interest assessment, control whether a nonminor may remain in extended foster care.
- Services from a regional center do not automatically replace dependency protections.
- A supervising agency remains responsible until the juvenile court lawfully relieves it of that role.
- Courts should identify actual statutory grounds before ending jurisdiction over a vulnerable young adult.
Why It Matters
Extended foster care can provide layers of accountability that are distinct from disability services. For nonminors unable to advocate fully for themselves, losing jurisdiction may also mean losing counsel, social-worker visits, and a judicial forum for addressing placement or care problems.
Dependency practitioners should make a clear record of continuing eligibility and each concrete benefit of oversight. Agencies should not assume that coordination with another service system authorizes withdrawal from court-ordered responsibilities.