Legal  >  All Advisory Opinions  >  Advisory Opinions Overview
All Advisory Opinions At-A-Glance

Any state may submit an informal written request to the Executive Director for assistance in interpreting the rules of this compact. The Executive Director may seek the assistance of legal counsel, the Executive Committee, or both, in interpreting the rules. The Executive Committee may authorize its standing committees to assist in interpreting the rules. Interpretations of the rules shall be issued in writing by the Executive Director or the Executive Committee and shall be circulated to all of the states.

Disclaimer: Advisory Opinions are written in accordance with how a Rule is currently drafted. They are not intended for speculation or to encompass all scenarios, but are a legal interpretation of a Rule(s).


Advisory Opinions by Year: 2014 |2012 |2011 |2010 | 2009 | Superseded Advisory Opinions

2014 Minimize
2014 Details At Issue Finding
Rule(s):

Opinion #:
Date Issued:
Requester:
ICJ Rule 8-101(3)

1-2014
01.23.2014
Rhode Island
The Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) as it relates to youth and family information.

 

HIPAA privacy rules allow disclosures of protected health information when consistent with applicable law and ethical standards, including disclosures to a law enforcement official reasonably able to prevent or lessen a serious and imminent threat to the health or safety of an individual or the public, or to identify or apprehend an individual who appears to have escaped from lawful custody.Under these provisions, it appears that disclosures of health information required to provide for treatment of juveniles subject to the ICJ, including non-delinquent runaways, would also be exempt from HIPAA requirements.
 

 

  
2012 Minimize
2012 Details At Issue Finding
Rule(s):

Opinion #:
Date Issued:
Requester:
ICJ Rule 4-101

5-2012
07.26.2012
Hawaii
Whether minors adjudicated juvenile delinquents in Hawaii and referred to residential treatment programs in Utah and California, but who do not qualify for transfer under the ICPC, may be transferred under the ICJ?

 

The above referenced section of 4-101(2)(f)(1) explicitly excludes from eligibility for transfer under the ICJ, a juvenile who will reside in 'residential facilities.'  This rule amendment was made by the Interstate Commission in the wake of Advisory Opinion 2-2011 which pointed out that under neither the provisions of the Compact nor the previous language of this rule, was there an exception to the application of the ICJ "based upon whether the delinquent juvenile whose supervision is transferred is placed in a public or private treatment facility."  However, at the following Annual Meeting of the Commission, this specific subsection was amended as stated above with the intent to clarify that delinquent juveniles placed in residential treatment facilities are excluded.  Thus, the minor referred to in Case #1 is now not eligible for transfer through ICJ because of the referral to the residential treatment program in Utah.
 
Rule(s):

Opinion #:
Date Issued:
Requester:
ICJ Rule 5-102

4-2012
07.26.2012
Wisconsin
Is a travel permit required to be issued, pursuant to ICJ Rule 5-102 for transfer of a juvenile sex offender from Wisconsin to Minnesota who is the subject of a delinquency petition, but who has not been adjudicated?

 

Once the juvenile is adjudicated delinquent, can the juvenile be allowed to return to Minnesota with his family while Wisconsin makes its request for transfer of supervision of the youth to Minnesota?

Accordingly, as to the first question, Rule 5-102(2) does not permit a juvenile who is an "accused juvenile delinquent" to travel from one state to the other for visits exceeding forty-eight hours without a travel permit.

 

Secondly, based upon the definition of 'juvenile' as provided in both the ICJ and ICJ Rule 1-101, as well as the requirements of Rule 4-103 (1), once the juvenile in question has been adjudicated delinquent as a sex offender, in the absence of either an approval of a transfer request or reporting instructions, allowing such juvenile to return to Minnesota violates both the Compact and the foregoing ICJ Rules.

 
Rule(s):

Opinion #:
Date Issued:
Requester:
ICJ Rule 4-106

3-2012
08.23.2012
Ohio
For purposes of detention and return of a person serving a juvenile probation or parole sentence who absconds or flees to avoid prosecution (youth with a warrant from another state) and who has the status of an adult in the home/demanding state (in this case Michigan), but is still classified as a juvenile in the holding state (in this case Ohio), must the holding state treat that person as an adult or does the law of the holding state regarding the age of majority apply? Based upon the provisions of the ICJ, and ICJ Rule 4-104-6, if the youth in question is serving a juvenile probation or parole sentence and absconds or flees to avoid prosecution (youth with a warrant from another state), Rule 4-106-6 creates an exception whereby the receiving state law regarding the age of majority applies to incarceration of juveniles, where "a receiving state court is required to detain any juvenile under the ICJ".  Under this rule, even though such an individual is already classified as an adult in the State of Michigan, based on this rule, if detained and returned pursuant to the ICJ, such youth may be treated as a "juvenile."
 
Rule(s):

Opinion #:
Date Issued:
Requester:
ICJ Rules

2-2012
04.10.2012
Idaho
If a juvenile is arrested on a new offense in a state other than the juvenile's home state, could the holding state's detention center bill the juvenile's family with detention fees while the new charge is going through the court process?

At what point would the hold on the new charge end, and the ICJ hold begin? Would it be the responsibility of the holding state to notify the home state of when the new charges were settled and the ICJ process had begun?

Could a holding state ever bill the home state for the cost of detention fees? Some states statutorily are not allowed to pay for detention time in another state.

In sum, while the Commission appears to have the statutory authority under Article I of the Compact to include supervision fees as part of those costs, ICJ Rule 4-104 (4) clearly reflects that the Commission has not seen fit to do so. Because the current ICJ Rules appear to preclude detention fees, other related questions concerning imposition of such fees upon a juvenile aremoot. Although ICJ Rule 4-104 (4) only deals with imposition of supervision fees upon 'a juvenile,' statutory prohibitions against such fees caution against attempting to impose such a fee upon the home state in the absence of further research into the nature and extent of such prohibitions and the number of states in which they exist.
 
Rule(s):

Opinion #:
Date Issued:
Requester:
 
ICJ Rules

1-2012

01.26.2012
West Region

 

Whether the law enforcement exemptions from the provisions of the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 ("HIPAA") would apply to transfers and returns of juveniles involving non-member states.
Based upon the provisions of the HIPAA administrative rules concerning exemptions from coverage and the above referenced authorities and analysis, the law enforcement exemptions from the provisions of the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 ("HIPAA") would not apply to transfers and returns of juveniles involving the State of Georgia or the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico except in the case of Georgia in which the transfers or returns are by and between that state and one of the nine (9) other states referenced above which have not repealed the 1955 compact.

 

    
2011 Minimize
2011 Details At Issue Finding
Rule(s):
 
 Opinion #:
Date Issued:
Requester:
6-104
 
4-2011
10.24.2011
West Region

 

Can a non-adjudicated juvenile offender, such as a youth subject to a deferred adjudication, whose out-of-state placement under the Interstate Compact for Juveniles (ICJ) has failed, be placed in a secure detention center while awaiting return to the sending state? Under the authority of ICJ Rule 6-104 … the Compact and its rules authorize both apprehension and detention of a juvenile, subject to the other relevant provisions of the ICJ rules regarding juvenile detention.
 
Rule(s):
 
  
 Opinion #:
Date Issued:
Requester:

 

Pleas and Abeyance Cases for Non-Adjudicated Juveniles
3-2011

05.26.2011
Colorado

 

Is a "non-adjudicated" juvenile sex offender sentenced under a plea and abeyance order and assigned to report to the Attorney General's office without any special conditions or a probation officer, and who wishes to transfer to another state, subject to the jurisdiction of the ICJ? Under the Compact a "non-adjudicated" juvenile sex offender sentenced under a 'plea and abeyance' order, but assigned to report to the Attorney General's office without any special conditions or a probation officer being assigned, and who seeks to transfer to another state is subject to the provisions of the ICJ, if the order not only requires compliance with all laws but whose sentence also includes provisions which, for example, require completion of other terms and conditions such as a sex offender treatment or counseling modification program. juvenile' even though there are no special conditions or the assignment of a probation officer. As such, the relocation of a juvenile under such a sentence is subject to the jurisdiction of the ICJ and applications for transfer of supervision should continue to be submitted and investigated as required under the Compact. Moreover, during the term of the sentencing order imposed by the sending state such a juvenile is subject to the rules of the Compact governing supervision of juveniles generally as provided in Chapters 4, 5, and 6 of the ICJ rules. Such a juvenile is not in actuality an 'unsupervised.
       
Rule(s):

 
Opinion #:
Date Issued:
Requester:
 
Determining which juveniles the new ICJ applies
2-2011

05.26.2011
Hawaii
Does the Interstate Compact for Juveniles ('ICJ') apply to the interstate transfer of supervision of delinquent juveniles, under juvenile jurisdiction in Hawaii, who are placed in a private residential treatment program?

Does the ICJ apply to the interstate transfer of supervision of delinquent juveniles, under juvenile jurisdiction in Hawaii, who are place in public institutions

 

*Based upon the provisions of the HIPAA administrative rules concerning exemptions from coverage and the above referenced authorities and analysis, the law enforcement exemptions from the provisions of the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 ("HIPAA") would not apply to transfers and returns of juveniles involving the State of Georgia or the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico except in the case of Georgia in which the transfers or returns are by and between that state and one of the nine (9) other states referenced above which have not repealed the 1955 compact.

Amended 01.26.2012

The ICJ applies to the interstate transfer of supervision of delinquent juveniles, who are under juvenile jurisdiction in Hawaii, whether placed in a public institution a private residential treatment program. There is no explicit exception to the application of the ICJ is made in either the Compact definition of juvenile in Article II, §H, or the provisions of ICJ Rule 4-101, §1 or §2 based upon whether the delinquent juvenile whose supervision is transferred is placed in a public or private treatment facility. However, the interests of the sending and receiving states to ensure protection and adequate care for such juveniles is sufficient to activate the concurrent jurisdiction provision under §3 where the placement involves a private residential treatment facility. Notwithstanding such joint jurisdiction, this should not defeat the legitimate interests of the ICJ in public safety and rehabilitation, which when deemed necessary may also include the imposition of requirements such as reporting to probation or parole officers, progress reports, and other appropriate means of supervision of such juveniles.
       
Rule(s):
  
Opinion #:
Date Issued:
Requestor:
HIPAA Exemptions for the ICJ
1-2011

02.10.2011
North Dakota
Whether or not the activities, including the disclosure and tracking of protected health information, of state agencies which administer the ICJ, acting pursuant to the provisions of the ICJ and its authorized rules, are exempt from the applicability of HIPAA.

 

 

 

 

 


Protected health information may be disclosed for law enforcement purposes when such disclosures are required by law.

 

The disclosure and tracking of protected health information, among authorized Compact Administrators' offices, concerning any juvenile subject to Compact supervision pursuant to court order, as required by the Compact and its authorized rules would be exempt from HIPAA.

    
2010 Minimize
2010 Details At Issue Finding

Rule(s):

Opinion #:
Date Issued:
Requester:

ICJ Rules
 
5-2010
09.13.2010
State of Colorado

Whether the Interstate Compact for Juveniles, and its duly authorized rules, apply to juveniles who are undocumented immigrants.

Colorado asks the following:

1) Is it appropriate to ascertain if the proposed placement juvenile is a citizen or in the country legally?

2) If the juvenile is not a citizen or here legally, can a placement be denied on those grounds and does this status make the juvenile ineligible for transfer?

3) Does or can the citizenship status of the transferring juvenile factor into the decision making process?

4) What status would a "common-law" step-parent carry, if any, if the (biological parent) was incarcerated or deported? 

The first three questions all pertain to the eligibility of a juvenile who is an undocumented immigrant to be transferred under the compact and, if otherwise eligible, whether or not the juvenile's immigration status may be ascertained and considered as a factor in denying a transfer.

While such person's status as an "undocumented" immigrant would not necessarily disqualify an immigrant from transferring under the Compact, the applicable rules may result in the denial of a transfer due to the inability of the immigrant to meet the criteria of the Compact in a given case. 

Accordingly, it is certainly reasonable to conclude that it is appropriate to ascertain the immigration status in order to determine whether a juvenile is eligible for transfer under the Compact and to consider undocumented immigration status as a legitimate basis for denial of transfer of supervision. 

With respect to question # 4, there is an implicit assumption of a legal recognition of the status of 'common law step-parent,' into whose custody a juvenile may be placed in the event of incarceration or deportation of the biological parent.  There is no recognition of or definition for such a status under the Compact or ICJ Rules, both of which contemplate a 'legal custodian' or 'legal guardian' as determined or ordered by a Court to serve in the place of the parent.  As such, a juvenile who is otherwise eligible for transfer and whose biological parent is incarcerated or deported could lawfully be placed with a 'legal custodian' or 'legal guardian.' 

 
Rule(s):

Opinion #:
Date Issued:
Requester:
ICJ Rules

4-2010
07.22.2010
State of Montana

Applicability and enforceability of the rules of the Interstate Compact for Juveniles with sovereign tribal nations and reservation lands

Whether the Interstate Compact for Juveniles and its duly authorized rules apply to juveniles residing in sovereign tribal nations and reservation lands.
Based upon the referenced provisions of the U.S. Constitution and decisions of the U.S. Supreme Court, in the absence of the Consent of Congress for tribes to enter into agreement with the states as members of the Interstate Compact for Juveniles, no such authority exists under which the provisions of the compact or its rules can regulate transfers of juveniles to and from sovereign tribal nations or reservation lands.
 
Rule(s):

Opinion #:
Date Issued:
Requester:
ICJ Transition Rules / ICJ Rules
2-2010
01.2010
National Office
Which Rules Apply According to Effective Date

Since the new rules promulgated by the Commission do not become effective until March 1, 2010, which Rules apply if a referral is received prior to that date, but the placement occurs after March 1, 2010.
Since the ICJ statute, adopted by all of the signatory states, expressly provides that "The existing rules governing the operation of the Interstate Compact on Juveniles superseded by this act shall be null and void twelve (12) months after the first meeting of the Interstate Commission created hereunder." (See Article VI, F.).

Thus, the "transition" rules as described above were replaced by the new rules promulgated by the Commission at its 2nd annual meeting in December 2009 at which time the Commission determined that these new rules would not take effect until March 1, 2010.

Clearly, the intent of the Interstate Commission for Juveniles was to apply the newly promulgated rules 'prospectively' beginning on that date.
 
Rule(s):
Opinion #:
Date Issued:
Requester:
4.104
1-2010
01.25.2010
Pennsylvania
Receiving State's Ability to Sanction Juveniles Under ICJ Rule 4-104.1

Pennsylvania would like to have the authority (as a receiving state) to sanction juveniles who are being supervised and continue to violate conditions of probation/parole. In some situations, the sending state does not have the resources to return the youth for violation hearings and other times the violations are not significant enough to warrant a retaking of the juvenile. This often results in "unsuccessful discharges" and thus not holding the juveniles accountable and putting communities at risk.

1. Does the phrase "same standards . . . that prevail for its own juveniles . . ." allow the receiving state, under this Rule to impose graduated sanctions?

2. Does this Rule or any other ICJ Rule address the receiving state's ability to sanction juveniles?
Rule 4-104 (1) in relevant part provides: "Each receiving state will assume the duties of visitation and supervision over any delinquent juvenile, including juvenile sex offenders who it has accepted for cooperative supervision and in exercise of those duties will be governed by the same standards of visitation and supervision that prevail for its own juveniles released on probation or parole."

It is clear that because the ICJ rules do not include a special definition of the terms "same standards . . . that prevail for its own juveniles. . ." the ordinary meaning of those terms leads to the inevitable conclusion that as the supervising State, Pennsylvania is thus permitted, under Rule 4-104.1, to impose 'graduated sanctions' upon any juvenile transferred under the compact if such standards are also applied to its own delinquent juveniles.

 

    
2009 Minimize
2009 Details At Issue Finding
Rule(s):



Opinion #:
Date Issued: Requester:
Article VII, Article XIII, Section B., and Article XI, Section C.
3-2009
08.31.2009
Idaho
Whether the failure or refusal of an Idaho county official to properly process the lawful transfer of supervision of a juvenile from Idaho to another state and the failure or refusal of the same Idaho county, in another case, to supervise a juvenile whose supervision was properly transferred to Idaho from another state constitutes a violation(s) of the ICJ which would result in potential liability of the County and/or State of Idaho. As in most states counties are specifically classified and recognized as political subdivisions of the State of Idaho. See for example Bonneville County v. Ysursa, 129 P.3d 1213 (Id. 2005); also Sanchez v. State Department of Corrections, 141 P.3d 1108 (Id. 2006) which unequivocally recognize that a county is a political subdivision of the State.

As a consequence the above ICJ provisions and authority apply equally and coextensively to all Idaho counties as political subdivisions.

Thus, the failure of a county to comply with the provisions of the ICJ and its duly authorized rules is tantamount to a violation by the State of Idaho and a default in its obligations under the compact and authorized rules.
Rule(s):

Opinion #:
Date Issued: Requester:
Article III, Section C. & Section G.
2-2009
06.24.2009
ICJ
Whether Ex-Officio members of the Interstate Commission for Juveniles or its' committees may make motions or cast votes?

Whether 'designees' or 'proxies' who are temporarily substituting for a commissioner at a meeting of the Commission or its' committees may make motions or cast votes?
Regarding the first issue, a review of Art. III, Sec. C. of the compact statute indicates the clear intent to provide for participation in Commission meetings by 'non-commissioners' but to limit such participation by classifying those persons as "ex-officio (non-voting)" members. Based on this provision of Art. III, Sec. C of the ICJ, while participation in Commission meetings including providing comments and opinions during debate are permitted, that ex-officio members of the commission are neither eligible to vote nor make motions at Commission meetings.

With respect to the second issue, it is clear that as long as the 'substitute' or 'proxy' has been appointed by the commissioner in consultation with the state council as required by section Art. III, Section G., by definition such person has the authority to both make motions and to vote at ICJ Commission meetings.
Rule(s):

Opinion #:
Date Issued: Requester:
Article III, Section B. & Section G
1-2009
06.24.2009
ICJ
What qualifications are required by the Interstate Compact for Juveniles in order for a commissioner or designee to be eligible to represent and vote on behalf of each member state on the Interstate Commission for Juveniles?

What qualifications are required by the Interstate Compact for Juveniles for another authorized representative of a compact state if a commissioner has decided that it is necessary to delegate the authority to vote and to otherwise exercise the authority of the commissioner from that state for a specified meeting?
The determination of whether an appointment of a commissioner is bona fide under the above referenced provisions of the Interstate Compact will depend upon establishing whether adequate documentation has been furnished to establish the 'appropriate appointing authority' has acted with respect to the appointment of the commissioner for that state. This can be demonstrated by such items as a gubernatorial executive order or letter of appointment, a statutory provision which clearly delegates such authority to another state official and proof that the official to who receives such delegated power has in fact issued an appointment letter to the proponent seeking recognition as a commissioner.

The above described procedure for the general appointment of a commissioner to act on behalf of a compact state under Article III, Section B. is a distinctly different process than the process which the compact provides in Article III, Section G. for the temporary appointment of another authorized representative to represent and vote on behalf of a state at a specific ICJ meeting in the absence of the commissioner. This temporary appointment for a specific meeting does not require the action by the 'appropriate appointing authority' and under the compact may be accomplished by action of the commissioner in consultation with the state council.
    
2010 Superseded Advisory Opinion
Opinion # Rules Released Requester At Issue Superseded
3-2010 5-101, 4-106.4 03.31.2010 Compliance Committee Rule 5-101: The sending state's ability to "override" a denial; who has decision making authority to "override" a denial; and, Adam Walsh Act implications January 1, 2011