All Advisory Opinions At-A-Glance

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.

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.

Though Minnesota asks several questions, the ultimate issue 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.  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 VI, are “complete and forwarded to the receiving state.” (emphasis supplied).  However, ICJ 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 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 ICJ Rule 4-102(3).

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(5) 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.

In sum, the proposed contract for the cooperative use of a Juvenile Detention Center facility located in Moorhead, Clay County, Minnesota and near the border between North Dakota and Minnesota for the temporary detention of juveniles awaiting adjudication on charges of delinquency in Cass County, North Dakota and detained in the Minnesota facility, is not prohibited by the terms of the Interstate Compact for Juveniles. In the absence of a transfer of supervision as defined by the terms of the Interstate Compact for Juveniles, such juveniles are not subject to these rules pursuant to Article I of the ICJ and ICJ Rules 4-101(1) and 4-101(5). Alternatively, because such an arrangement constitutes a contract “for the cooperative institutionalization in public facilities in member states for delinquent youth needing special services . . .” as contemplated in ICJ Article I, (D), it is not prohibited by the Compact, even if such juveniles are conditionally released into the community for education or employment.

Based upon the provisions of the ICJ Compact and ICJ Rule 5-101(7), if the youth in question is serving a juvenile probation or parole sentence and absconds or flees to avoid prosecution (youth with a warrant from another state), ICJ Rule 5-101(7) creates an exception whereby the receiving state law regarding the age of majority applies to detention of juveniles, where “a receiving state court is required to detain any juvenile under the ICJ”.  Under this rule, even though such an individual is already classified as an adult in the State of Michigan, based on this rule, if detained and returned pursuant to the ICJ, such youth must be treated as a “juvenile.”