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).

 

Rule(s):
ICJ Rule 7-103
Date Issued:
Requester:
Rules Committee
At Issue:

Demanding/Sending State’s Authority to seek return of a juvenile in cases where charges are pending in the Receiving/Holding State under ICJ Rule 7-103

Finding:

When a demanding/sending state seeks the return of a juvenile and there are pending charges in the holding/receiving state, the provisions of ICJ Rule 7-103 clearly preclude a return of the juvenile until the pending charges against the juvenile are resolved or upon the consent of the holding/receiving state and the demanding/sending state that such juvenile is available for return.

Rule(s):
ICJ Rules 4-101, 4-102
Date Issued:
Requester:
Rules Committee
At Issue:

Pre-adjudicated Home Evaluation Requests

Finding:

Based upon the above provisions of the ICJ rules and legal analysis, while a sending state is notexplicitly prohibited from requesting a home evaluation for a juvenile pending adjudication oncharges in the sending state, under the above referenced ICJ rules, a receiving state is notrequired to conduct such a home evaluation or report.

Rule(s):
ICJ Rule 4-102
Date Issued:
Requester:
Minnesota
At Issue:

Signatures on the IA/VI Form

Finding:

Based on the literal language of ICJ Rule 4-102, the sending state is required to obtain the signature of the judge or Compact official in order to comply with this rule. The receiving state has no authority to accept or supervise a case until permission is given by the court of jurisdiction or Compact official through the signing of the Form IA/VI.

Rule(s):
ICJ Rule 2-102(1)
Date Issued:
Requester:
Executive Committee
At Issue:

ICJ authority to conduct records checks for another state on juveniles not subject to ICJ..

Finding:

Rule 2-102-1, does not appear to authorize the collection or sharing of information concerning the interstate movement of juveniles who are not ‘subject to’ or ‘supervised under’ this Compact. However, these provisions do not preclude verification of whether a juvenile is subject to the ICJ.

Rule(s):
ICJ Rule 4-104(4), ICJ Article I
Date Issued:
Requester:
West Region subgroup
At Issue:

Approving ‘placement’ or ‘supervision’ and ICJ authority in cases where placement may violate court orders.

Finding:

In summary, based upon the terms of the Compact, the above referenced Compact provisions, ICJ Rules and the legal authorities cited herein, that ICJ Rule 4-104(4) does not authorize a receiving state to violate ‘no contact’ orders or other court ordered conditions of the adjudicating judge or parole authority in the sending state.