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.'
|ICJ Rules |
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.
|ICJ Transition Rules / ICJ Rules |
|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.
|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.