20+ year of experience
Trial ready
Personal attention
Reunification is the goal built into nearly every California dependency case, but what happens when the child at the center of the case is a teenager who does not want to go home? Parents, caregivers, and even social workers often assume a teen’s wishes are the final word. In reality, California law gives weight to a teenager’s voice without handing over complete control of the outcome.
No single California statute lets a teenager unilaterally cancel reunification services simply by saying no. The juvenile court, not the child, decides whether reunification continues based on the parent’s progress, the safety of the home, and the child’s overall best interest. That said, a teenager’s clearly expressed wishes carry real influence, and judges are required to consider them at multiple points in the case.
California law directs the court to consider a child’s desires when reunification cannot be completed within the statutory time limits. Still, the child clearly wants continued contact with a parent. This means a teen’s relationship with a parent can shape the permanency plan even after reunification services have ended, particularly when adoption is not a realistic or desired outcome.
At the hearing where the court selects a permanent plan under Welfare and Institutions Code section 366.26, the law recognizes a specific circumstance where an older child’s objection matters a great deal: when a child age twelve or older objects to being adopted, that objection can serve as a legal basis for the court to choose a different permanent plan, such as legal guardianship, instead of terminating parental rights. This exception exists precisely because lawmakers recognized that forcing an adoption on an unwilling teenager rarely serves that child’s wellbeing.
This exception is specific to the choice between adoption and other permanency options. It does not mean a teenager can independently decide, earlier in the case, that reunification services should simply stop.
Reunification services can be terminated for reasons unrelated to what the teen wants, including a parent’s failure to engage in court-ordered services, a finding that returning the child would create a substantial risk of harm, or the expiration of statutory time limits. In those situations, a teen’s objection to reunification will not extend services beyond what the law allows, but it will shape what permanency plan the court chooses next.
For older youth who remain under the court’s jurisdiction as nonminor dependents, California law also recognizes that continued reunification services require some level of agreement. If a nonminor dependent and their parent do not agree that continued reunification services serve the young person’s best interest, the court can terminate those services. This reflects a broader theme in dependency law: as children get older, their voice in the process grows.
Cases involving resistant teenagers require a careful, individualized approach. The law gives real weight to what an older child wants, but it does not remove the court’s responsibility to weigh safety, progress, and the family’s full history.
If you are navigating a dependency case involving a teenager who is resisting reunification, the attorneys at ALL Trial Lawyers can help you understand your rights and build the strongest possible path forward. Call (866) 811-4255 for a free consultation.
All fields are required. If you need immediate assistance, do not hesitate to call us at (866) 811-4255.
Mohammad Abuershaid, professionally known as Mo Abuershaid, is the founding partner of ALL Trial Lawyers and one of California’s most trusted authorities in dependency law, juvenile dependency cases, CPS defense, and high stakes CPS cases.