ARTICLE I.

Purpose and Policy.

It is the purpose and policy of the party states to cooperate with each other in the interstate placement of children to the end that:

1. Each child requiring placement shall receive the maximum opportunity to be placed in a suitable environment and with persons or institutions having appropriate qualifications and facilities to provide a necessary and desirable degree and type of care.
2. The appropriate authorities in a state where a child is to be placed may have full opportunity to ascertain the circumstances of the proposed placement, thereby promoting full compliance with applicable requirements for the protection of the child.
3. The proper authorities of the state from which the placement is made may obtain the most complete information on the basis of which to evaluate a projected placement before it is made.
4. Appropriate jurisdictional arrangements for the care of children will be promoted.

ARTICLE II.

Definitions.

As used in this compact:

1. "Child" means a person who, by reason of minority, is legally subject to parental, guardianship or similar control.
2. "Sending agency" means a party state, officer or employee thereof; a subdivision of a party state, or officer or employee thereof; a court of a party state; a person, corporation, association, charitable agency or other entity which sends, brings, or causes to be sent or brought any child to another party state.
3. "Receiving state" means the state to which a child is sent, brought, or caused to be sent or brought, whether by public authorities or private persons or agencies, and whether for placement with state or local public authorities or for placement with private agencies or persons.
4. "Placement" means the arrangement for the care of a child in a family free or boarding home or in a child-caring agency or institution but does not include any institution caring for the mentally ill, mentally defective or epileptic or any institution primarily educational in character, and any hospital or other medical facility.

ARTICLE III.

Conditions for Placement.

1. No sending agency shall send, bring, or cause to be sent or brought into any other party state any child for placement in foster care or as a preliminary to a possible adoption unless the sending agency shall comply with each and every requirement set forth in this article and with the applicable laws of the receiving state governing the placement of children therein.
2. Prior to sending, bringing or causing any child to be sent or brought into a receiving state for placement in foster care or as a preliminary to a possible adoption, the sending agency shall furnish the appropriate public authorities in the receiving state written notice of the intention to send, bring, or place the child in the receiving state. The notice shall contain:
   1. The name, date and place of birth of the child.
   2. The identity and address or addresses of the parents or legal guardian.
   3. The name and address of the person, agency or institution to or with which the sending agency proposes to send, bring, or place the child.
   4. A full statement of the reasons for such proposed action and evidence of the authority pursuant to which the placement is proposed to be made.
3. Any public officer or agency in a receiving state which is in receipt of a notice pursuant to paragraph (b) of this article may request of the sending agency, or any other appropriate officer or agency of or in the sending agency's state, and shall be entitled to receive therefrom, such supporting or additional information as it may deem necessary under the circumstances to carry out the purpose and policy of this compact.
4. The child shall not be sent, brought or caused to be sent or brought into the receiving state until the appropriate public authorities in the receiving state shall notify the sending agency, in writing, to the effect that the proposed placement does not appear to be contrary to the interests of the child.

ARTICLE IV.

Penalty for Illegal Placement.

The sending, bringing, or causing to be sent or brought into any receiving state of a child in violation of the terms of this compact shall constitute a violation of the laws respecting the placement of children of both the state in which the sending agency is located or from which it sends or brings the child and of the receiving state. Such violation may be punished or subjected to penalty in either jurisdiction in accordance with its laws. In addition to liability for any such punishment or penalty, any such violation shall constitute full and sufficient grounds for the suspension or revocation of any license, permit, or other legal authorization held by the sending agency which empowers or allows it to place, or care for children.

ARTICLE V.

Retention of Jurisdiction.

1. The sending agency shall retain jurisdiction over the child sufficient to determine all matters in relation to the custody, supervision, care, treatment and disposition of the child which it would have had if the child had remained in the sending agency's state, until the child is adopted, reaches majority, becomes self-supporting or is discharged with the concurrence of the appropriate authority in the receiving state. Such jurisdiction shall also include the power to effect or cause the return of the child or its transfer to another location and custody pursuant to law. The sending agency shall continue to have financial responsibility for support and maintenance of the child during the period of the placement. Nothing contained herein shall defeat a claim of jurisdiction by a receiving state sufficient to deal with an act of delinquency or crime committed therein.
2. When the sending agency is a public agency, it may enter into an agreement with an authorized public or private agency in the receiving state providing for the performance of one or more services in respect of such cases by the latter as agent for the sending agency.
3. Nothing in this compact shall be construed to prevent a private charitable agency authorized to place children in the receiving state from performing services or acting as agent in that state for a private charitable agency of the sending state; nor to prevent the agency in the receiving state from discharging financial responsibility for the support and maintenance of a child who has been placed on behalf of the sending agency without relieving the responsibility set forth in paragraph (a) hereof.

ARTICLE VI.

Institutional Care of Delinquent Children.

A child adjudicated delinquent may be placed in an institution in another party jurisdiction pursuant to this compact but no such placement shall be made unless the child is given a court hearing on notice to the parent or guardian with opportunity to be heard, prior to his being sent to such other party jurisdiction for institutional care and the court finds that:

1. Equivalent facilities for the child are not available in the sending agency's jurisdiction; and
2. Institutional care in the other jurisdiction is in the best interest of the child and will not produce undue hardship.

ARTICLE VII.

Compact Administrator.

The executive head of each jurisdiction party to this compact shall designate an officer who shall be general coordinator of activities under this compact in his jurisdiction and who, acting jointly with like officers of other party jurisdictions, shall have the power to promulgate rules and regulations to carry out more effectively the terms and provisions of this compact.

ARTICLE VIII.

Limitations.

This compact shall not apply to:

1. The sending or bringing of a child into a receiving state by his parent, step-parent, grandparent, adult brother or sister, adult uncle or aunt, or his guardian and leaving the child with any such relative or nonagency guardian in the receiving state.
2. Any placement, sending or bringing of a child into a receiving state pursuant to any other interstate compact to which both the state from which the child is sent or brought and the receiving state are party, or to any other agreement between said states which has the force of law.

ARTICLE IX.

Enactment and Withdrawal.

This compact shall be open to joinder by any state, territory or possession of the United States, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, and, with the consent of Congress, the Government of Canada or any province thereof. It shall become effective with respect to any such jurisdiction when such jurisdiction has enacted the same into law. Withdrawal from this compact shall be by the enactment of a statute repealing the same, but shall not take effect until two years after the effective date of such statute and until written notice of the withdrawal has been given by the withdrawing state to the Governor of each other party jurisdiction. Withdrawal of a party state shall not affect the rights, duties and obligations under this compact of any sending agency therein with respect to a placement made prior to the effective date of withdrawal.

ARTICLE X.

Construction and Severability.

The provisions of this compact shall be liberally construed to effectuate the purposes thereof. The provisions of this compact shall be severable and if any phrase, clause, sentence or provision of this compact is declared to be contrary to the constitution of any party state or of the United States or the applicability thereof to any government, agency, person or circumstance is held invalid, the validity of the remainder of this compact and the applicability thereof to any government, agency, person or circumstance shall not be affected thereby. If this compact shall be held contrary to the constitution of any state party thereto, the compact shall remain in full force and effect as to the remaining states and in full force and effect as to the state affected as to all severable matters.

(1975, c. 406, § 63.1-219.2; 2002, c. 747.)

Cross references. - As to implementation of the Interstate Compact on the Placement of Children, see § 63.2-1100 et seq.

As to fulfilling requirements for visitation, inspection, or supervision of children, homes, etc., in another party state by an agency in the receiving state, see § 63.2-1103 .

As to deeming of court issuing the interlocutory order for parental placement adoption as the sending agency when petitioner moves outside the Commonwealth after issuance of the order, see § 63.2-1240.

Compact cross references. - As to provisions of other member states, see:

Alabama: Code of Ala. §§ 44-2-20 to 44-2-26.

Alaska: Alaska Stat. §§ 47.70.010 to 47.70.080.

Arizona: A.R.S. §§ 8-548 to 8-548.06.

Arkansas: A.C.A. §§ 9-29-201 to 9-29-208.

California: Cal Fam Code §§ 7900 to 7912.

Colorado: C.R.S. 24-60-1801 to 24-60-1803.

Connecticut: Conn. Gen. Stat. §§ 17a-175 to 17a-184.

Delaware: 31 Del. C. §§ 381 to 389.

District of Columbia: D.C. Code §§ 4-1421 to 4-1424.

Florida: Fla. Stat. § 409.401.

Georgia: O.C.G.A. §§ 39-4-1 to 39-4-10.

Hawaii: HRS §§ 350E-1 to 350E-9.

Idaho: Idaho Code §§ 16-2101 to 16-2107.

Illinois: 45 ILCS 15/0.01 to 15/9.

Indiana: Burns Ind. Code Ann. §§ 31-28-4-1 to 31-28-4-8.

Iowa: Iowa Code §§ 232.158 to 232.168.

Kansas: K.S.A. §§ 38-1201 to 38-1206.

Kentucky: KRS §§ 615.030 to 615.050.

Louisiana: La. Ch.C. Art. 1608 to 1622.

Maine: 22 M.R.S. §§ 4191 to 4247.

Maryland: Md. Family Law Code Ann. §§ 5-601 to 5-611.

Massachusetts: Mass. Spec. Laws ch. S95, §§ 1 to 8.

Michigan: MCLS §§ 3.711 to 3.717.

Minnesota: Minn. Stat. §§ 260.851 to 260.91.

Mississippi: Miss. Code Ann. §§ 43-18-1 to 43-18-17.

Missouri: §§ 210.620 to 210.640 R.S.Mo.

Montana: Mont. Code Anno., §§ 41-4-101 to 41-4-109.

Nebraska: R.R.S. Neb. §§ 43-1101, 43-1102.

Nevada: Nev. Rev. Stat. Ann. §§ 127.330 to 127.350.

New Hampshire: 12 RSA 170-A:1 to 170-A:7.

New Jersey: N.J. Stat. § 9-23-5.

New Mexico: N.M. Stat. Ann. §§ 32A-11-1 to 32A-11-7.

New York: NY CLS Soc Serv § 374-a.

North Carolina: N.C. Gen. Stat. §§ 7B-3800 to 7B-3806.

North Dakota: N.D. Cent. Code, §§ 14-13-01 to 14-13-08.

Ohio: ORC Ann. 5103.20 to 5103.99 (Anderson).

Oklahoma: 10 Okl. St. §§ 571 to 576.

Oregon: ORS §§ 417.200 to 417.990.

Pennsylvania: 62 P.S. §§ 761 to 765.

Rhode Island: R.I. Gen. Laws §§ 40-15-1 to 40-15-10.

South Carolina: S.C. Code Ann. §§ 20-7-1980 to 20-7-2070.

South Dakota: S.D. Codified Laws §§ 26-13-1 to 26-13-9.

Tennessee: Tenn. Code Ann. §§ 37-4-201 to 37-4-207.

Texas: Tex. Fam. Code §§ 162.101 to 162.107.

Utah: Utah Code Ann. §§ 62A-4a-701 to 62A-4a-709.

Vermont: 33 V.S.A. §§ 5901 to 5927.

Virgin Islands: 34 V.I.C. §§ 121 to 127.

Washington: Rev. Code Wash. (ARCW) §§ 26.34.010 to 26.34.080.

West Virginia: W. Va. Code §§ 49-2 A-1, 49-2 A-2.

Wisconsin: Wis. Stat. §§ 48.988, 48.989.

Wyoming: Wyo. Stat. §§ 14-5-101 to 14-5-108.

Effective date. - This title became effective October 1, 2002.

Research References. - For article, "Adoption Law in Arkansas," see 53 Ark. L. Rev. 1 (2000).

For survey, "1997-1998: Recent Decisions: The Maryland Court of Appeals," see 58 Md. L. Rev. 920 (1999).

For article, "Current Trends in Tennessee Family Law: A Roadmap Through Tennessee's New Adoption Statute," see 27 U. Mem. L. Rev. 885 (1997).

For note, "Transitional Adoption From An American Perspective, The Need For Uniformity" see 27 Case W. Res. J. Int'l L. 465 (1995).

10 Witkin Summary of California Law Parent and Child.

25 Fla Jur Family Law.

Illinois Jurisprudence, Family Law.

46 NY Jur Domestic Relations.

88 NY Jur Public Welfare and Old Age Assistance.

48 Oh Jur Family Law.

40A Tex Jur Family Law.

Applicability. - The Interstate Compact on the Placement of Children is intended only to govern the placing of children in substitute arrangements for parental care, such as foster care or adoption, the Compact does not apply when a child is returned to a natural parent residing in another state. Ark. Dep't of Human Servs. v. Huff, 347 Ark. 553, 65 S.W.3d 880 (2002).

Relying on McComb v. Wambaugh, 934, F.2d 474 (3rd Cir. 1991), the court held that the ICPC does not apply to placements with out-of-state natural parents or family members. Arkansas Dep't. of Human Servs. v. Huff, 347 Ark. 553, 2002 Ark. LEXIS 74, 65 S.W.3d 880 (2002).

Interstate Compact on the Placement of Children applies to non-custodial parents. Green v. Div. of Family Servs., 864 A.2d 921 (Del. 2004).

Jurisdiction. - When an agency from another state places a child in Georgia pursuant to the ICPC, the agency that sent the child to Georgia shall retain jurisdiction over the child sufficient to determine all matters in relation to the custody, supervision, care, treatment and disposition of the child; the parents' filing of a habeas corpus action in Georgia does not change the result. Such action was not authorized under the ICPC, as the parents could not force Georgia to divest the South Carolina Department of Social Services of its jurisdiction. In the Interest of K.W., 261 Ga. App. 654, 583 S.E.2d 509, 2003 Ga. App. LEXIS 739 (2003).

Tennessee did not retain jurisdiction over pending adoption matter pursuant to Interstate Compact on Placement of Children where biological mother lived in Tennessee but had given custody of child to prospective adoptive parents in Indiana. Lowe v. White (In re M.L.L.), 810 N.E.2d 1088 (Ind. App. 2004).

Placement outside the jurisdiction. - Where a child was placed with his aunt in New Hampshire after the New Hampshire Department of Health and Human Services recommended such placement, but the child was later returned to Florida after New Hampshire rescinded its placement approval, the Interstate Compact on the Placement of Children applied, and a trial court erred in returning the child to the aunt without reapplication of Art. III(d) and receipt of a second placement approval from New Hampshire. Dep't of Children & Families v. Fellows, 30 Fla. L. Weekly D 496, 895 So. 2d 1181, 2005 Fla. App. LEXIS 1672 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 5th Dist. 2005).

Compliance with prior court orders. - Nowhere does the ICPC purport to allow the ICPC compact administrator in either the "sending state" or the "receiving state" to ignore or contradict preexisting court orders concerning the custody and placement of children. In this case, the Hawaii court determined the appropriate placement for the two children and regardless of whether the Florida or Hawaii ICPC administrators agreed with the Hawaii court's placement decision, they were required to obey that court order, and the Florida court was required to enforce it. Dep't of Children & Family Servs. v. D.N. (In re D.N.), 28 Fla. L. Weekly D 2278, 858 So. 2d 1087, 2003 Fl. App. LEXIS 14777 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2d Dist. 2003), reh'g denied, 2003 Fla. App. LEXIS 20705 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2d Dist. Nov. 3, 2003).

Requirements. - Since the ICPC requires compliance with the laws of the sending state and Indiana's laws required that the state either 1) obtain the consent of both birth parents in an interstate adoption proceeding, 2) get a court order finding consent of one or both parents is not necessary, or 3) prove publication to a missing parent, then the putative father is entitled to a hearing where none of those requirements were met. In re Adoption of Lichtenburg, 2003 Ohio 1014, 2003 Ohio App. LEXIS 968 (Ct. App., Warren County 2003).

Under the ICPC, a child shall not be sent, brought, or caused to be sent or brought into the receiving state until the appropriate public authorities in the receiving state notify the sending agency, in writing, that the proposed placement does not appear to be contrary to the interests of the child. In re L.L., 172 N.C. App. 689, 616 S.E.2d 392, 2005 N.C. App. LEXIS 1798 (N.C. Ct. App. 2005).

Authority to grant consent to adoption. - The court held that the Oklahoma Dept. of Human Services (DHS) has the authority to grant consent to an adoption and thus, impliedly, the DHS has the authority to withhold consent to an adoption. Miller v. State (In re E.C.B.), 2003 OK CIV APP 5, 2002 Okla. Civ. App. LEXIS 120, 62 P.3d 789 (2002).

Applicability of regulations. - Adoption agencies had standing to bring an action to determine whether the Interstate Compact on Placement of Children applies to the unborn children of expectant mothers who come to Utah to give birth and place the children for adoption. The agencies had a legally enforceable interest in their licenses, which could be suspended or revoked for noncompliance with the compact. Alternative Options & Servs. for Children v. Chapman, 2004 UT App 488, 516 Utah Adv. Rep. 6, 106 P.3d 744 (2004).

Applied in FL: ; Dep't of Children & Families v. R.H., 2002 Fla. App. LEXIS 7231, 819 So. 2d 858 (2002); Dep't of Children & Families v. J.H., 907 So. 2d 1275, 2005 Fla. App. LEXIS 12206 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 5th Dist. 2005) IN: ; Bester v. Lake County Office of Family & Children, 839 N.E.2d 143 (Ind. 2005) MA: ; Quinones v. Commonwealth, 423 Mass. 1015, 671 N.E.2d 1225, 1996 Mass. LEXIS 228 (1996); A Juvenile, 396 Mass. 116, 484 N.E.2d 995, 1985 Mass. LEXIS 1723 (1985) MO: ; In re C.G., 539 S.W.2d 705, 1976 Mo. App. LEXIS 2739 (Mo. Ct. App. 1976); In re T.N.H., 2002 Mo. App. LEXIS 57, 70 S.W.3d 2 (Mo. Ct. App. 2002) NJ: ; State in re H., 147 N.J. Super. 1, 370 A.2d 506, 1977 N.J. Super. LEXIS 653 (1977); Div. of Youth & Family Servs. v. L.C., 346 N.J. Super. 435, 2002 N.J. Super. LEXIS 22, 788 A.2d 330 (2002); State Div. of Youth & Family Servs. v. K.F., 353 N.J. Super. 623, 2002 N.J. Super. LEXIS 385, 803 A.2d 721 (App. Div. 2002) OH: ; In re Secrest, 2002 Ohio 7094, 2002 Ohio App. LEXIS 6931 (Ct. App., Montgomery County 2002).