A. The court may authorize continued custody of a child prior to adjudication if there are reasonable grounds to believe the child is in need of care and that continued custody is necessary for his safety and protection.
B. 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 prevent or eliminate the need for removal of the child from his home and, after removal, to make it possible for the child to safely return home. The child's health and safety shall be the paramount concern. These determinations must be supported by findings of fact contained in the continued custody order issued pursuant to Article 627.
C. If the department's first contact with the family occurred during an emergency in which the child could not safely remain at home even with reasonable in-home services provided to the family, the department shall be deemed to have made reasonable efforts to prevent or eliminate the need for removal.
D. The court may authorize the removal of the child even if the department's efforts have not been reasonable, and may impose such sanctions it deems appropriate pursuant to Article 712.
E. The court may authorize, with the consent of the state, continued implementation of a safety plan prior to the adjudication if there are reasonable grounds to believe the child is in need of care and that the continued implementation of the safety plan is necessary for his safety and protection. The safety plan shall continue to set forth conditions as determined or agreed upon by the state as necessary for the protection of the child's health and safety while remaining in the home.
Acts 1991, No. 235, §6, eff. Jan. 1, 1992; Acts 1999, No. 449, §1, eff. July 1, 1999; Acts 2001, No. 567, §1; Acts 2014, No. 486, §1.