Is it legal for an Agency to proceed to adopt a toddler out of her biological family when the record contains no written notification to any of her paternal relatives?

QUESTIONS PRESENTED @ Is it legal for an Agency to proceed to adopt a dependent toddler (A.K.) out of her biological family when the record contains no “written notification” of child's detention to any of her paternal relatives (or any other form of notification) in violation of US Public Government Law 110-351; California Welfare and Institutions code §309 (e)(1); California Rule of Court 5.695 (e)(1)(2) and (f); and California Rule of Court 5.722 (5)(A-D), and despite the Agency having identifying information with which : to contact such relatives (i.e. social security numbers, names, dates of birth, an employment location where uncle was manager), and despite such relatives being on programs the Agency uses for family-finding (i.e. Medi-Cal, HUD, having valid drivers licenses, California IDs, grandmother being on disability, grandfather and uncle both veterans, uncle running a foster care facility and being a pediatric nurse)? (grandparents, aunt, uncles, sibling, parent of siblings, great-aunts, great-grandparents all denied notification) (2CT 514, 515, 555-562, 525-527, 546-547, 8CT 740-742, 755-756, 620-621, 682-633, 642-651, 654-659, 719-721, 731-782, 727-728, 737739, 729-730, 746-748, 733-734, 749-751, 785-736, 752-754, 743-746, , 757-758, 579-582) e Is it legal for a toddler with worsening medical conditions that the Agency directly attributes “to her heavy use of steroids to control her asthma/wheezing,” such as: starting to grow “pubic hair” at less than 2 years old, and recurrent episodes of “oral and pharyngeal thrush” (yeast infection of the mouth) along with continued “visits to immunology,” to be denied her state and right to permanence with her biological family when they live in an area medically documented to improve toddler's asthma in as little as 1 week, and even reduce or eliminate her need for steroid medications altogether, thus : _ eliminating her current worsening medical conditions, i.e. being in her best medical interests? (4CT 885, 886; 4CT 1083, 959; S253971 Supreme Court Petition for Review Exhibit 3; 4RT 145, 160, 161, 164; 4CT 954-977) ; Does A.K.'s immediate medical need, coupled with the fact that none of her paternal family were ever notified, constitute “a changed circumstance” that would warrant new placement with relatives? “Section 388 provides a procedural vehicle to change a child's placement based on changed circumstances,” and “is appropriate for a child who has been freed for adoption...888 encompasses any change in circumstances affecting the dependent child.” (In re A.C. (2010) 186 Cal. App.4th 976, 978.) (Effects of High Altitude on Bronchial Asthma) , (Asthma & Mountain Air) Carlsen KH, Oseid S, Sandnes T, Trondskog B, Roksund O e Is it legal for Agency to deny an entire paternal side notification because, as defacto counsel argues: “The Agency was under no legal obligation to notify the paternal grandmother because A.K. was ina stable placement offering permanency”? (4CT 891) And if so, how does this match up with Rule of Court 5.722 (5) (A-D) which requires relatives be notified even post-permanency, postreunification in cases like ours where the record reveals no record . of “written notification” to relatives? And how does this harmonize with Assembly Bill 988—which was sponsored by the Judicial Council—mandating priority notice to relatives to the 5“ degree for placement as part of its FFE (Family Finding & Engagement) process, a process which connects close and distant relatives of children in foster care interested in placement specifically to “improve outcomes” for children in response to research revealing the benefits of placing children with loving relatives as opposed to taking them out of their biological (Assem. Jud. Comm., 3d reading analysis of Assem Bill 938 (2008-2009 Sess.) p. 3) (4CT 1977, 1078; S253971 Supreme Court Petition for Review Exhibit 5) And how does this harmonize with US Government Public Law 110-351 Fostering Connections to Success Act o