(1) If a court finds that reunification is not in the best interests of a child, the court may approve placement of the child in another planned permanent living arrangement if:
(a) The court finds a more permanent placement, such as adoption, permanent guardianship, or placement with a fit and willing relative, is not in the best interests of the child;
(b) The department documents reasons why the placement will endure and how the proposed arrangement will be more stable and secure than ordinary foster care;
(c) The court finds that the health, safety, and well-being of the child will not be jeopardized by such an arrangement; and
(d) There are compelling reasons to show that placement in another planned permanent living arrangement is the most appropriate permanency goal. Compelling reasons for such placement may include, but are not limited to:
1. The case of a parent and child who have a significant bond but the parent is unable to care for the child because of an emotional or physical disability, and the child’s foster parents have committed to raising him or her to the age of majority and to facilitate visitation with the disabled parent;
2. The case of a child for whom an Indian tribe has identified another planned permanent living arrangement for the child; or
3. The case of a foster child who is 16 years of age or older who chooses to remain in foster care, and the child’s foster parents are willing to care for the child until the child reaches 18 years of age.
(2) The department and the guardian ad litem must provide the court with a recommended list and description of services needed by the child, such as independent living services and medical, dental, educational, or psychological referrals, and a recommended list and description of services needed by his or her caregiver.
(3) The department shall continue to supervise the planned permanent living arrangement until the court orders otherwise. The court shall continue to review the placement at least once every 6 months.