Supervision and Services Requirements
The transfer of supervision is not a transfer of jurisdiction and thus supervision in the receiving state is a joint effort between the two states in support of the court’s dispositional order. See In re S.H., No. A128298, 2011 WL 2152062, at *5 (Cal. Ct. App. June 1, 2011) (“Article I of the ICJ provides that among its purposes was to ‘ensure that the adjudicated juveniles and status offenders subject to this compact are provided adequate supervision and services in the receiving state as ordered by the adjudicating judge or parole authority in the sending state . . . .’”). While receiving states have limited discretion to deny a proposed transfer, this fact does not change the underlying nature of the relationship between the sending state and the receiving state. Consequently, until the receiving state agrees in writing to assume supervision, supervision remains with the sending state. See ICJ Rule 4-101(2) (Interstate Comm’n for Juveniles 2022); In re A.S.M., 325 P.3d 1251, 1255 (Mont. 2014) (requiring that ICJ application for transfer be approved prior to placement). Once the receiving state agrees to assume supervision, the sending state must issue reporting instructions to the juvenile, on the Form V, Notification from Sending State of Parolee or Probationer Proceeding to the Receiving State, if the juvenile is not already residing in the receiving state, and provide written notification of the juvenile’s departure to the receiving state. ICJ Rule 4-104(6) (Interstate Comm’n for Juveniles 2024).
Once supervision is transferred, the receiving state may not treat transferred juveniles any differently than it would treat its own juveniles. The express terms of the ICJ prohibit authorities in a receiving state from exercising supervision powers under standards that are different from those they apply to their own delinquent juveniles. See ICJ Rule 5-101 (Interstate Comm’n for Juveniles 2024); E.g., In re Crockett, 71 Cal. Rptr. 3d 632, 639-40 (Cal. Ct. App. 2008); Palmer v. Commonwealth, 632 S.E.2d 611, 615 (Va. Ct. App. 2006) (“ICJ directs each receiving state to assume the duties of . . . supervision over any such delinquent juvenile and in the exercise of those duties will be governed by the same standards of . . . supervision that prevail for its own delinquent juveniles released on probation or parole.”). Consequently, a state may not require a juvenile sex offender from another state to register if it would not require the same of its own juvenile delinquents even though the courts of the sending state required such registration. Id.
A receiving state assumes responsibility for conducting visitation and supervision of a juvenile. The receiving state must furnish quarterly progress reports to the sending state. Additional reports should be sent when specific concerns arise. For example, the receiving state shall send a report when there is a change in residence or a change in the person with whom the juvenile resides. If the juvenile is residing with a different person, the sending state can request information about the new residence without submitting new ICJ Forms. The sending state may propose alternative living arrangements or return the juvenile to the sending state. See ICJ Rule 5-101(1), (4), (5) (Interstate Comm’n for Juveniles 2024). See ICJ Ad. Op. 01-2020 (Interstate Comm’n for Juveniles 2020).
Both the sending and receiving states have authority to enforce the terms of supervision, which may include the imposition of sanctions in the receiving state. See ICJ Rule 5-101(3) (Interstate Comm’n for Juveniles 2024). Costs associated with enforcement actions are the responsibility of the state seeking to impose a sanction. It must be emphasized again, however, that the authority of the receiving state to enforce the terms of supervision does not relieve the sending state of ultimate jurisdiction over the case. Consequently, the age of majority and duration of supervision are controlled by the laws of the sending state. Id. at Rule 5-101(7) (Interstate Comm’n for Juveniles 2024); Cf. In re B.W., 313 S.W.3d 818, 820 (Tex. 2010) (holding that a 13-year-old person could not legally consent to sex in the state where the case was adjudicated, and thus could not be adjudicated delinquent for offense of prostitution). However, where the receiving state holds a juvenile under the ICJ, the type of secure facility and laws governing age of majority are determined by the laws of the receiving state. Id.