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):
Pleas and Abeyance Cases for Non-Adjudicated Juveniles
Date Issued:
Requester:
Colorado
At Issue:

Is a "non-adjudicated" juvenile sex offender sentenced under a plea and abeyance order and assigned to report to the Attorney General's office without any special conditions or a probation officer, and who wishes to transfer to another state, subject to the jurisdiction of the ICJ?

Finding:

Under the Compact a "non-adjudicated" juvenile sex offender sentenced under a 'plea and abeyance' order, but assigned to report to the Attorney General's office without any special conditions or a probation officer being assigned, and who seeks to transfer to another state is subject to the provisions of the ICJ, if the order not only requires compliance with all laws but whose sentence also includes provisions which, for example, require completion of other terms and conditions such as a sex offender treatment or counseling modification program. juvenile' even though there are no special conditions or the assignment of a probation officer. As such, the relocation of a juvenile under such a sentence is subject to the jurisdiction of the ICJ and applications for transfer of supervision should continue to be submitted and investigated as required under the Compact. Moreover, during the term of the sentencing order imposed by the sending state such a juvenile is subject to the rules of the Compact governing supervision of juveniles generally as provided in Chapters 4, 5, and 6 of the ICJ rules. Such a juvenile is not in actuality an 'unsupervised.

Rule(s):
Determining which juveniles the new ICJ applies
Date Issued:
Requester:
Hawaii
At Issue:

Does the Interstate Compact for Juveniles ('ICJ') apply to the interstate transfer of supervision of delinquent juveniles, under juvenile jurisdiction in Hawaii, who are placed in a private residential treatment program?

Does the ICJ apply to the interstate transfer of supervision of delinquent juveniles, under juvenile jurisdiction in Hawaii, who are place in public institutions

Finding:

The ICJ applies to the interstate transfer of supervision of delinquent juveniles, who are under juvenile jurisdiction in Hawaii, whether placed in a public institution a private residential treatment program. There is no explicit exception to the application of the ICJ is made in either the Compact definition of juvenile in Article II, §H, or the provisions of ICJ Rule 4-101, §1 or §2 based upon whether the delinquent juvenile whose supervision is transferred is placed in a public or private treatment facility. However, the interests of the sending and receiving states to ensure protection and adequate care for such juveniles is sufficient to activate the concurrent jurisdiction provision under §3 where the placement involves a private residential treatment facility. Notwithstanding such joint jurisdiction, this should not defeat the legitimate interests of the ICJ in public safety and rehabilitation, which when deemed necessary may also include the imposition of requirements such as reporting to probation or parole officers, progress reports, and other appropriate means of supervision of such juveniles.

Rule(s):
HIPAA Exemptions for the ICJ
Date Issued:
Requester:
North Dakota
At Issue:

Whether or not the activities, including the disclosure and tracking of protected health information, of state agencies which administer the ICJ, acting pursuant to the provisions of the ICJ and its authorized rules, are exempt from the applicability of HIPAA.

Finding:

Protected health information may be disclosed for law enforcement purposes when such disclosures are required by law.

The disclosure and tracking of protected health information, among authorized Compact Administrators' offices, concerning any juvenile subject to Compact supervision pursuant to court order, as required by the Compact and its authorized rules would be exempt from HIPAA.

Rule(s):
ICJ Rules
Date Issued:
Requester:
State of Colorado
At Issue:

Whether the Interstate Compact for Juveniles, and its duly authorized rules, apply to juveniles who are undocumented immigrants. 

Colorado asks the following:

1) Is it appropriate to ascertain if the proposed placement juvenile is a citizen or in the country legally?

2) If the juvenile is not a citizen or here legally, can a placement be denied on those grounds and does this status make the juvenile ineligible for transfer?

3) Does or can the citizenship status of the transferring juvenile factor into the decision making process?

4) What status would a "common-law" step-parent carry, if any, if the (biological parent) was incarcerated or deported? 

Finding:

The first three questions all pertain to the eligibility of a juvenile who is an undocumented immigrant to be transferred under the compact and, if otherwise eligible, whether or not the juvenile's immigration status may be ascertained and considered as a factor in denying a transfer.

While such person's status as an "undocumented" immigrant would not necessarily disqualify an immigrant from transferring under the Compact, the applicable rules may result in the denial of a transfer due to the inability of the immigrant to meet the criteria of the Compact in a given case.  

Accordingly, it is certainly reasonable to conclude that it is appropriate to ascertain the immigration status in order to determine whether a juvenile is eligible for transfer under the Compact and to consider undocumented immigration status as a legitimate basis for denial of transfer of supervision. 

With respect to question # 4, there is an implicit assumption of a legal recognition of the status of 'common law step-parent,' into whose custody a juvenile may be placed in the event of incarceration or deportation of the biological parent.  There is no recognition of or definition for such a status under the Compact or ICJ Rules, both of which contemplate a 'legal custodian' or 'legal guardian' as determined or ordered by a Court to serve in the place of the parent.  As such, a juvenile who is otherwise eligible for transfer and whose biological parent is incarcerated or deported could lawfully be placed with a 'legal custodian' or 'legal guardian.' 

Rule(s):
ICJ Rules
Date Issued:
Requester:
State of Montana
At Issue:

Applicability and enforceability of the rules of the Interstate Compact for Juveniles with sovereign tribal nations and reservation lands

Whether the Interstate Compact for Juveniles and its duly authorized rules apply to juveniles residing in sovereign tribal nations and reservation lands.

Finding:

Based upon the referenced provisions of the U.S. Constitution and decisions of the U.S. Supreme Court, in the absence of the Consent of Congress for tribes to enter into agreement with the states as members of the Interstate Compact for Juveniles, no such authority exists under which the provisions of the compact or its rules can regulate transfers of juveniles to and from sovereign tribal nations or reservation lands.