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).

 

2-2018
Rule(s):
7-103
Date Issued:
Requester:
Ohio
At Issue:

Return of Juvenile Serving a Sentence for New Offense in a Receiving State

Finding:

Based upon the above provisions of the ICJ rules and legal analysis, where there are pending charges, which exist in the receiving/holding state, ICJ Rule 7-103 prohibits the return of the juvenile until “after charges are resolved,” or “consent is given” by the courts.

1-2018
Rule(s):
4-101, 4-104
Date Issued:
Requester:
Vermont
At Issue:

Is a sending state required to transfer supervision of a juvenile adjudicated there for an offense but who resides with a parent in the receiving state in a case where the parent may be homeless?  If so, can enforcement action be taken if the sending state refuses to implement the transfer under the ICJ?

Finding:

When there is no parent or legal guardian residing in the sending state, the sending state cannot refuse to transfer supervision based on information that the parent is homeless or at risk of homelessness.

2-2017
Rule(s):
4-101
Date Issued:
Requester:
Arizona
At Issue:

Out-of-State Juvenile Sentenced to Incarceration

Finding:

The ICJ does not prohibit a juvenile who has been adjudicated delinquent and sentenced to a period of confinement in Iowa from being placed in out-of-state correctional facilities in Arizona to serve a court ordered term of incarceration. However, the ICJ does not apply to such juveniles because their status as 'incarcerated' means they are not subject to the ICJ.

1-2016
Rule(s):
4-101, 4-102
Date Issued:
Date Revised:
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 not explicitly prohibited from requesting a home evaluation for a juvenile pending adjudication on charges in the sending state, under the above referenced ICJ Rules, a receiving state is not required to conduct such a home evaluation or report.

2-2015
Rule(s):
4-102
Date Issued:
Date Revised:
Requester:
Minnesota
At Issue:

Signatures on the IA/VI Form: whether a request for transfer of supervision of an eligible juvenile under the compact can permissibly be processed without the signature of the ‘sentencing’ judge or compact official.

Finding:

ICJ Rule 4-102(2)(a)(i) and (2)(b) leave no question that in both parole and probation cases, the ICJ Office in the sending state shall ensure that referral documents, including the Form IA/VI, are “complete and forwarded to the receiving state.” (emphasis supplied). However, Rule 4-102(3) states “. . . The receiving state shall not delay the investigation pending receipt of the additional documentation. If the juvenile is already residing in the receiving state, the receiving state shall obtain the juvenile’s signature on the Form IA/VI Application for Services and Waiver.” 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, subject to the limited exception noted in Rule 4-102(3).

1-2015
Rule(s):
2-102(1), 2-106
Date Issued:
Date Revised:
Requester:
Executive Committee
At Issue:

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

Finding:

In sum, the express language of the foregoing Compact Statute provisions in Article I (J) and Article III (K), as well as 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, pursuant to Rule 2-106, state ICJ Offices may share information regarding a juvenile who crosses state lines to determine if they are or may be subject to the ICJ.