CHILDREN AND THE LAW
...
Dependency Petitions
......
Dispositional Hearing
.........
Interstate Compact Plcmnt. of Chldrn/ICPC
............Case Law
12 Cards On This Topic:
Although ICPC compliance not required for an out-of-state placement with father, nothing in the ICPC prevented trial court from exercising its discretion to order an ICPC evaluation to gather information prior to such placement.
Juvenile court properly concluded, based on all relevant criteria, and noting that TX twice denied ICPC requests based on F's history there, that it would be detrimental to C to place him with F in Texas.
C's wishes, need for services, relationship with baby sister, lack of relationship with F, paucity of information about F, and mother's reunif. plan did not support W&IC 361.2 detriment finding.
CA cases hold ICPC does not apply to out-of-state placement with a parent; other states disagree — multistate legislative response required to address dysfunctional lack of uniformity.
Court should have ordered HHSA to obtain information about out-of-state F, through ICPC or other method.
ICPC compliance is not required for placement with out-of-state parent; CRC 1428 does not alter this conclusion as statute controls over rule.
ICPC doesn't prevent Cal. court from ordering visitation between dependent C and non-custodial parent where previous ICPC evaluation found parent's home unsuitable for placement.
Placing children with relatives out of state and in distant county during reunification period is abuse of discretion; ICPC violated by conditional placement order.
ICPC not mandatory in connection with placement of child with natural parent in another state.
As ICPC, Art. 2(d) "family free home" placement does ••not•• include home of natural parent, ICPC inapplicable to case of M placed with father in Minn.
Order placing M in Alabama reversed as juvenile court failed to comply with ICPC.
Cases discussing various aspects of ICPC.