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.


    •