A. The court shall conduct a permanency hearing, which shall consider in-state and out-of-state permanent placement options for the child, within thirty days of a judicial determination pursuant to Article 672.1 that reunification efforts are not required.

            B. The court shall conduct a permanency hearing within nine months after the disposition hearing if the child was removed prior to disposition or within twelve months if the child was removed at disposition, but in no case more than twelve months after the removal. Permanency reviews shall continue to be held at least once every twelve months thereafter until the child is permanently placed or earlier upon motion of a party for good cause shown or on the court’s own motion.

            C. The court shall determine the permanent plan for the child that is most appropriate and in the best interest of the child in accordance with the following priorities of placement:

            (1) Return the child to the legal custody of the parents within a specified time period consistent with the child’s age and need for a safe and permanent home. In order for reunification to remain as the permanent plan for the child, the parent shall be in compliance with the case plan and making significant measurable progress toward achieving its goals and correcting the conditions requiring the child to be in care.

            (2) Adoption.

            (3) Placement with a legal guardian.

            (4) Placement in the legal custody of a suitable relative who is willing and able to offer a stable and safe home for the child.

            (5)(a) Placement in the least restrictive, most family-like alternative permanent living arrangement. The department shall document in the child’s case plan and its report to the court the compelling reason for recommending this plan over the preceding higher priority alternatives.

            (b) The permanent plan provided for in this Paragraph may be considered only if the child is sixteen years of age or older.

            D.(1) The court shall consider a child’s need for continuing contact with any relative by blood, adoption, or affinity with whom the child has an established and significant relationship in accordance with Article 1269.2 as one of several factors in determining the permanent plan that is most appropriate and in the best interest of the child.

            (2)(a) In the case of a child under the age of six, the court may find that continuation of the child’s placement with the current caregiver is in the child’s best interest if the child is in a stable home environment where the child’s physical and emotional needs are met by a person who has a significant relationship with the child, that no relative or other suitable caregiver has been identified as a concurrent plan caregiver as part of the child’s case plan or report submitted to the court, and that it would be detrimental to the child’s well-being if the child is removed from the current caregiver. Upon such finding, the department shall not make any change in placement absent prior written notice to the court. Prior notice for a placement change is not required when necessary to ensure the safety of the child, when the current caregiver requests that the child be removed, or when a child is moving to the home of a parent for the purpose of a trial placement.

            (b) In the event of removal from a placement with a current caregiver pursuant to Subsubparagraph (a) of this Subparagraph, upon motion of the court, motion of the current caregiver, or motion of the child, which is filed within fifteen days of the change in placement, a contradictory hearing shall be held to determine whether removal was in the best interest of the child.

            (c) For the purposes of Subsubparagraph (a) of this Subparagraph, a foster parent, relative, or other suitable individual with whom a child under the age of six has resided continuously for nine months or more is a person who has a significant relationship with the child. Nothing in this Subparagraph shall be construed to interfere with any rights afforded to biological parents.

            E. Except as otherwise provided in Article 672.1, the court shall determine whether the department has made reasonable efforts, as defined in Article 603, to reunify the parent and child or to finalize the child’s placement in an alternative safe and permanent home in accordance with the permanent plan. The health, welfare, and safety of the child shall be the paramount concern in the court’s determination of the permanent plan.

            F.(1) If a child is in an out-of-state placement, the court shall determine and enter findings on whether the placement is safe, appropriate, and otherwise in the best interests of the child.

            (2) In the case of a child who will not be returned to the parent, the court shall consider in-state and out-of-state placement options.

            G. When reunification is determined to be the permanent plan for the child, the court shall advise the parents that it is their obligation to achieve the case plan goals and correct the conditions that require the child to be in care within the time period specified by the court. Otherwise, an alternative permanent plan for the child shall be selected and a petition to terminate parental rights may be filed. When adoption is the permanent plan for the child, the court shall advise the parent of the authority to voluntarily surrender the child and to consent to the adoption prior to the filing of a petition to terminate parental rights.

            H. The permanency hearing may be conducted by a court-appointed or court-approved administrative body.

            I. In any permanency hearing, including any hearing regarding the transition of the child from foster care to independent living, the court or administrative body conducting the hearing shall consult, in an age-appropriate manner, with the child regarding the proposed permanency or transition plan for the child.

            J. In the case of a child fourteen years of age or older, the hearing shall include a review of the transitional plan developed with the child and the department in accordance with Article 675(B)(6).

            K. In any permanency hearing for a child whose permanent plan is placement in the least restrictive, most family-like alternative permanent living arrangement, the court or administrative body conducting the hearing shall ask the child about the desired permanency outcome for the child.

            Acts 1991, No. 235, §6, eff. Jan. 1, 1992; Acts 1997, No. 612, §1; Acts 1999, No. 449, §1, eff. July 1, 1999; Acts 2001, No. 567, §§1 and 3; Acts 2001, No. 568, §1, eff. Jan. 1, 2002; Acts 2007, No. 334, §1; Acts 2012, No. 730, §1; Acts 2015, No. 124, §1, eff. June 19, 2015; Acts 2021, No. 350, §1, eff. June 17, 2021; Acts 2022, No. 272, §1.