Chapter 4.6 Retaking/Return of Juveniles After Transfers of Supervision

Retaking/Return of Juveniles After Transfers of Supervision 

Though most transfers of supervision are successful, the Compact provides mechanisms for the returning youths when issues arise. The processes required for retaking or returning juveniles depends on whether the decision to retake/return is made by the sending state pursuant to Rule 5-103 or by the receiving state pursuant to Rule 5-103A. 

The sending state has absolute authority to retake a youth when notified of a violation of probation/parle.  Pursuant to ICJ Rule 5-103 (3), “(T)he decision of the sending state to retake a juvenile shall be conclusive and not reviewable within the receiving state…”  Id. at Rule 5-103(3).  See supra Section 3.7.3. However, if there are pending charges in the holding/receiving state, the juvenile cannot be returned until charges are resolved in the receiving state, unless consent is given by both states’ courts and ICJ Offices.  ICJ Rule 7-103 (Interstate Comm’n for Juveniles 2026).

If a warrant has been issued by the sending state, the receiving state (supervising state) shall honor the warrant. ICJ Rule 5-103(3)(a)-(c) (Interstate Comm’n for Juveniles 2026). In such circumstances, juveniles shall be apprehended and detained, pending return to the sending state. Courts have routinely recognized the right of a receiving state to arrest and detain a juvenile based on such a request from a sending state.  See, e.g., State ex rel. Ohio Adult Parole Auth. v. Coniglio, 610 N.E.2d 1196 (Ohio Ct. App. 1993) (offender cannot be admitted to bail pending retaking); Crady v. Cranfill, 371 S.W.2d 640 (Ky. Ct. App. 1963) (detention of offenders proper as only courts in the sending state can determine the status of their jurisdiction over the offender). This provision extends only to retaking under ICJ Rule 5-103 and does not directly apply to mandatory relocations under ICJ Rule 5-103A. 

Upon notification to the receiving state’s ICJ office, officers of the sending state are permitted to enter the receiving state, or any other state to which the juvenile has absconded, in order to retake the juvenile. Pursuant to the Compact and ICJ Rule 5-103, where there has been a waiver of formal extradition proceedings, officers need only establish their authority and the identity of the juvenile.  Once the officers’ authority is established, authorities in a receiving state may not prevent, interfere with, or otherwise hinder the transportation of the juvenile back to the sending state.  Id. at Rule 5-103.  Interference by court officials would constitute a violation of the ICJ and its Rules. 

There are also three unique circumstances in which the receiving state may determine that a youth must relocate from their current residence, pursuant to ICJ Rule 5-103A, Mandatory Relocation. In the first circumstance, the receiving state may initiate mandatory relocation procedures if a legal guardian remains in the sending state, the receiving state has documented efforts or interventions to redirect the youth’s behavior, and one of the following applies:

1. The juvenile no longer resides in the residence approved by the receiving state due to documented instances of violation of conditions of supervision; or
2. An alternative residence is determined to be in the best interest of the juvenile due to documented instances of violation of conditions of supervision and no viable alternatives have been located in the receiving state; or
3. An immediate, serious threat to the health and safety of the juvenile and/or others in the residence or community is identified.

Secondly, the receiving state may require the sending state to take action when a youth resides with someone other than a legal guardian and the person with whom they reside requests they be removed from the home. Id. at Rule 5-103A(1)(b). 

Finally, the receiving state can determine that a youth who is a student or resides independently in the receiving state is subject to mandatory relocation due to documented instances of violations of conditions of supervision, when the receiving state has documented efforts or interventions to redirect the behavior. Id. at Rule 5-103A(1)(c). 

In cases where the receiving state determines relocation is mandatory pursuant to Rule 5-103A, the receiving state must notify the sending state of the determination using the Form IX, Mandatory Relocation Report, which must contain:

1. Details regarding how the supervising agent determined relocation is mandatory; and
2. Description of efforts or interventions to redirect behavior or maintain current residence; and
3. Any pending charges in the receiving state.

The sending state is required to either secure alternative living arrangements or return the youth within ten business days of receiving the Form IX, Mandatory Relocation Report. See ICJ Rule 5-103A(3)(d) (Interstate Comm’n for Juveniles 2026).