SUMMARY OF STATE CASES ADDRESSING ICPCJXCASESNOTES3rd Cir. McComb v. Wambaugh, 934 F.2d 474 (3d Cir. 1991) (plain language, history and intentof ICPC reflects doesn’t apply to noncustodial parents)ALS.L.J.F. v. Cherokee Cnty. Dep’t of Human Res., 165 So. 3D 607 (Ala. Civ. App. 2014)(court upholds termination of parental rights against mother; ICPC implicated as homestudy process initiated for maternal grandparents and not approved, court cites Clay,and notes “lack of ICPC approval provides clear and convincing evidence to supportconclusion that placement with the maternal grandparents had been properly consideredand rejected as a potential viable alternative to termination of the mother’s parentalrights.”)Alabama has not directly addresseda statutory argument that the ICPCdoes not apply to non-custodialparents, but in the past hasexpressed support for an agency’sposition that it does, while alsoimposing a higher standard above amere home study denial, beforeM.H. v. Calhoun Cty. D.H.R., 848 So. 2D 1011 (Ala. Civ. App. 2002) (interpreting Clay allowing termination to proceedto stand for proposition that Alabama agency must investigate and provide against a natural parent.rehabilitative services to parent residing in another state before proceeding withtermination of parental rights, and agency not absolved of follow on responsibilitiesmerely because of negative home study).D.S.S. v. Clay County Dep’t of Human Res., 755 So. 2d 584 (Ala. Civ. App. 1999) (DSSclaims “compact prevented transfer of children to out-of-state father without stateapproval”; court actually rules affirming termination for mother but reversing forfather, where father lived in Georgia but was engaged with children and agency hadargued that ICPC “prevented it from transferring [children] to Georgia withoutapproval from the Georgia authorities”; court accepts that the ICPC applied butimposes higher duty on agency than just apprising father, and termination shouldn’thave been done where father did not follow up on home study in Georgia).AKViolet C. v. State, 436 P.3d 1032 (Alaska 2019) (termination of parental rights for Appellate courts in Alaska do notmother and father supported where agency made reasonable efforts to reunify; but appear to have squarely ruledICPC process not started for father in Texas as he had only recently been released from whether the ICPC must be appliedAmicus App. 037
jail, didn’t maintain contact, and was reincarcerated).Charles S. v. Alaska Dep’t of Health & Soc. Servs., 442 P.3d 780 (Alaska 2019) (courtoverturns termination of parental rights against father and remanded for reconsiderationof termination of mother’s rights; ICPC implicated as agency maintained positive ICPChome study required before returning children to parents, but also in email expressed toproceed with termination as caseworker worried a positive result would “hurt ourcase,” Washington state conducted a home study and approved, and court “concernedby the suggestion that OCS delayed the Washington ICPC home study for tacticallitigation reasons and not for the best interests of the children.”).Theresa L. v. State, Dept’t of Health & Soc. Servs., 353 P.3d 831 (Alaska 2015) (courtoverturns termination of mother’s parental rights because agency presented insufficientevidence children suffered from mental injury; ICPC implicated as mother had movedto Texas and agency had insisted it could not place children without Texas approval,and Texas had denied placements; court notes split of states on ICPC application toparental placements but doesn’t reach issue as ICPC denial had no effect at lower courtlevel on termination decision).G.C. v. State, 67 P.3d 648 (Alaska 2003) (termination of father’s parental rights upheldwhere evidence supported abandonment and reasonable efforts made at reunification;ICPC process started for paternal grandmother’s house as father was incarcerated inColorado where both lived, and denied).to non-custodial parents, althoughthe Alaska Supreme Court hasrecognized the split of authorities.In that case, the Court overturned atermination of a mother’s parentalrights where the ICPC process hadbeen initiated and resulted in adenial of placement, but the lowercourt had terminated rights on other,insufficient grounds. Otherwise,although not directly addressingwhether the ICPC must be appliedto noncustodial parents, it hasvariouslyupheldterminationproceedings where the ICPCprocess was not begun, overturnedterminations that proceeded despitepositive home studies and ionsthatoccurred following foreign states’denials of placements.C.J. v. State, 18 P.3d 1214 (Alaska 2001) (termination of father’s parental rightsoverturned where agency did not produce evidence beyond a reasonable doubt or makeactive efforts towards reunification; ICPC process conducted and denied by Florida asfather failed to respond to requests for information, but other information in the recordfrom his home study was favorable).ARBall v. Arkansas Department of Human Services, 2011 Ark. App. 307 (Ark. Ct. App.2011) (upheld termination of parental rights from challenge by mother who allegedICPC process not completed on her, and court noted she had failed prior home studiesand court “make[s] no comment on whether the ICPC was in fact applicable in thisAmicus App. 038Arkansas has held and reinforcedthat the ICPC does not apply to noncustodial parents, based upon thestatutory limitations on placements
case, given that the children were being considered for placement with a parent.)pursuant to foster care orpreliminary to adoption in ArticleArk. Dep’t of Human Servs. v. Huff, 65 S.W.3d 880 (Ark. 2002) (court upheld trial III.court’s denial of termination of mother’s parental rights and return of children tomother and exclusion of home study conducted by Colorado and its denial ofplacement as more prejudicial than probative, and presentation of due process problemsas it could not be challenged; ICPC does not apply to placements with non custodialparents in another state, but only placing children for foster care or adoption)Nance v. Ark. Dep’t Human Servs., 316 Ark. 43, 870 S.W.2d 721 (Ark. 1994) (ICPConly applies to foster care and adoptions, and not custody placements between parents)AZDonald W. v, Dep’t of Child Safety, No. 1 CA-JV 18-0322, P.2d (Ariz. Ct. App.2019) (court overturns termination of parental rights where record was devoid ofevidence supporting allegations of unfitness in original petition, petition should havebeen dismissed, and child should have been placed immediately with father; ICPC notrequired under those circumstances as “lack of knowledge concerning Father’s fitnessis not a basis to keep a child in out-of-home placement,” doesn’t directly overturnLeonardo but states while agency may request a courtesy check, unless it “has areasonable basis for believing the out-of-state parent is unfit, it must turn over the childto the parent” without conducting a full home study. * 16. Court also notes denial of aICPC home study “alone does not preclude a parent from gaining custody of the child,”which would depend upon a fuller unfitness review. * 16.)Although Arizona had previouslyheld that the ICPC applies to noncustodial parents, rejecting thestatutory analysis of McComb, seeLeonardo, it has more recentlymoved away from that position. InDonald W. issued last year, theCourt cited Emoni, Alexis O, andseveral other cases approvingly, inholding that continued out of homecare, and any attendant ICPC homestudy for a non custodial parent,Arizona Dept. of Economic Sec. v. Stanford, 234 Ariz. 477 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2014) (after were not permissible in the absenceboth parental rights terminated and child previously in custody of maternal of any affirmative evidence ofgrandmother, following her death subsequent placement for guardianship with maternal unfitness on the part of the nonaunt required ICPC completion and approval, and court declines revisiting Leonardo) custodial parent.Arizona Dept. of Economic Sec. v. Leonardo, 22 P.3d 513 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2001) (ICPCapplies to non custodial parental placements)CASan Diego Cnty. Health & Human Servs. Agency v. Christine L. (In re Liam L.), 193 California courts have consistentlyCal. Rptr. 3d 378, 393 n.8 (Cal. Ct. App. 2015) (challenge by mother to placement found that ICPC home studies mayAmicus App. 039
stemming from CINA case to natural out of state father; agency had required father tocomplete ICPC in interim period while he developed relations with child, but courtreferences in fn “Although the Agency apparently required J.L. to obtain an ICPCapproval, “[c]ompliance with ICPC is not required for placement with an out-of-stateparent.” (Patrick S., supra, 218 Cal.App.4th at p. 1264, 160 Cal.Rptr.3d 832.)”)In re Patrick S. III, 218 Cal. App. 4th 1254, 1264 (2013) (CINA removal of child frommother’s care, Court overturns denial of placement with out of state father; ICPCimplicated as Wash. state initially did courtesy check – good – but ultimately deniedhome study placement as father failed to keep appointment; cites to earlier case holdingICPC was not required for placement with out of state parent In re John M – 2006 –reiterates lower court erred in distinguishing John M as where a child has a fit parentwilling to assume custody, there is no need for state involvement unless placementwould create a substantial risk of detriment)In re Suhey G., 221 Cal. App. 4th 732 (2013) (trial court orders ICPC evaluation offather, who was denied placement despite a favorable home study; appellate court findsnot abuse of discretion to order home study and cites In re John M noting stating thatwhile ICPC is not mandatory for non custodial parents, “nothing in the ICPC preventsthe use of an ICPC evaluation as a means of gathering information before placing achild with such a parent” - In re John M court had suggested California could utilizeprovisions in the ICPC for agreements with other states or private entities for postplacement monitoring services)In re B.S., 209 Cal. App. 4th 246 (2012) (father with history of child offenses andalcohol abuse requests ICPC home study to facilitate placement, denied twice by Texasbecause of his history; Court reviews non mandatory nature of ICPC application to noncustodial parents, but holds trial court need not “ignore an ICPC that was done at thebest of the out of state parent, simply because it was not statutorily required.” *254).In re C.B., 188 Cal.App.4th 1024 (Cal. Ct. App. 2010) (reviews California casesconsistently holding ICPC does not apply to non custodial parents, but noting splitswith other states and commenting on problems)Amicus App. 040not be required as a pre-condition toplacement with a non custodialparent. However, they have alsonoted that aspects of the ICPC maystill be used (e.g., courtesy checks&post-placementmonitoringagreements), and where a parentvoluntarily requests a home studythose results may be consideredprior to placement.
In re John M., 141 Cal.App.4th 1564, 47 Cal.Rptr.3d 281 (Cal. Ct. App. 2006)(dependency petition filed based upon mother’s actions, with no allegations aboutfather who requested placement as nonoffending non-custodial parent; agency didn’tinitiate ICPC or allow delay for father to pursue but placed child with other relative;Court overturns, agency should have used ICPC or other means to obtain basicinformation, but not full home study, cites Tara S., and In re Johhny S., for prior casesholding ICPC does not apply to non custodial parents)COIn re IJO, 2019 COA 151 (Colo. App. 2019) (Court reviews termination of out of statemother’s parental rights, where OH denied placement based upon home study, and COauthorities did not make reasonable efforts to rectify problems identified in homestudy; “Whether placement in an out-of-state, noncustodial parent’s home falls withinthe ICPC is an unresolved question in this state. Nationwide, courts have answered thisquestion both ways. Compare Kemper, 5 A.L.R. 6th 193, § 6 (discussing cases holdingthat the ICPC applies to out-of-state placement with a natural parent), with id. § 7(discussing cases holding that the ICPC does not apply to such placements). ¶ 12 Weneed not resolve that question now. Even if the ICPC applies to placement with anatural parent, it cannot be applied in such a way as to relieve the Department of itsobligations to exercise reasonable efforts to reunify the family. And the juvenile court’sfindings do not make sufficiently clear whether that occurred in this case.”)People v. N.G., 303 P.3d 1207 (Colo. App. 2012) (CINA petition brought againstmother, father in AZ requested ICPC home study which provided positive review, butagency placed with uncle; Court holds parental presumption of fitness to father notdiscounted by finding as against mother, and remands for lower court to address hisfitness).People ex Rel. D.P, 181 P.3d 403 (Colo. App. 2008) (Court upholds termination ofnatural father’s rights, stemming from original CINA proceeding against mother, andfather’s failure to follow treatment plan which included amongst other requirements aICPC home study in RI).In re People, 88 P.3d 599 (Colo. 2004) (mother in Missouri places child for adoptionAmicus App. 041Colorado has not specifically ruledon whether the ICPC may beapplied to require home studies ofnon custodial parents prior toplacement, but it has noted the splitof states on the issue, and stronglyintimated that it would not on dueprocess and equal protectiongrounds.
with family that returns with child to Co, then subsequently withdraws consent andfilings occur in both Missouri and Co, Court here addresses only jurisdictional issuesfrom dismissal of Co action and holds Co could have continued to entertain case).CTIn re Natalie S., 139 A.3d 824 (Conn. App. Ct. 2016) (CINA proceeding againstmother, father initially unstated by mother at time of filing, hadn’t seen child since shewas a few months old, subsequently appeared and after confirming paternity, moved tohave child placed with him out of state, agency social worker flew to NC to inspecthome prior to placement, no other evidence of unfitness; mother argues trial courtshould have done more thorough investigation, appeals court notes where agency hasalready taken child into care and there is evidence rebutting a presumption of fitness ofthe non custodial parent, the agency has authority and responsibility to investigatewhether placement is consistent with ICPC goals and policies, citing Emoni, but herewithout such evidence lower court did not err in placing without ICPC home study orotherwise imposing other custody restrictions on father).Connecticut has directly ruled thatthe ICPC process of requiringreceiving state approval andconduct of a home study may not berequired of non custodial parents,but also reinforced that where thereis any suggestion of unfitness, anagency must still investigate, andcan utilize other aspects of theICPC as well as its own authorities.In re Emoni W., 305 Conn. 723 (Conn. 2012) (CINA proceeding against mother, out ofstate father had been previously engaged with children, lower court had requiredcompletion of ICPC home study before placement, and once completed children placedwith him but supreme court finds issue not moot; statutory interpretation done on plainmeaning as “children in the care of their own parents are not in ‘foster care’ in anyordinary sense of that phrase, and parents are not required to adopt their own children”734-36; court limits holding to where parental rights have not been diminished orterminated by court order, as “when a child is under the care and supervision of thepetitioner based on allegations of parental neglect, the petitioner has the authority toinvestigate the fitness of an out-of-state parent, to retain custody of or supervision overthe child during the investigation, and to request conditions on the parent’s custody,including protective supervision by the petitioner or by the analogous agency in thereceiving state.” 738-39.)DCIn re Petition of T.M.J., 878 A.2d 1200 (D.C. 2005) (dispute between adoptive motherand former foster mother, against natural grandmother, lower court disregarded parentalpreferences for placement with grandmother due in part to denial of placementfollowing ICPC home study; parental rights of mother had been terminated, and onlyAmicus App. 042The District of Columbia has notaddressed the application of theICPC to non custodial parents,although it has, in one case, held
issue was application of ICPC to grandmother’s adoption petition; court addresses that the ICPC’s procedures must beexemption, but notes it applies to “private arrangements for a child’s placement when followed prior to adoption by athose arrangements are made between a limited class of persons consisting primarily of grandparent.close relatives”)In re Petition of P.S. F.E.S, 797 A.2d 1219, 1223 n.4 (D.C. 2001) (consolidatedtermination of parental rights and parents’ withholding of consent for adoption, courtnotes only in passing while remarking that neither parent understood the child’smedical needs, that a ICPC home study was completed on the birth parents’ home inNew York)DEDep't of Servs. for Children, Youth & Their Families v. B.T.B., 16-13494 (Del. Fam.Mar. 14, 2018) (court declines to address constitutional challenge, but finds pursuant toGreen framework that denial of ICPC home study on mother who otherwise completestreatment plan may be disregarded as ICPC does not apply to fit parents, andcompletion of treatment plan restored presumption of fitness)Delaware has held that the ICPCmay be applied to require receivingstate approval through a home studyof non custodial parents, but may bedispensed with where no indicia ofunfitness exist.Green v. Div. of Family Servs., 864 A.2d 921 (Del. 2004) (termination of parental rightsof both parents, court also addresses ICPC and finds it applies to non-resident parentsseeking custody, but limits holding to non custodial parents where there is a question asto their fitness and ability to take responsibility for a child, but “where the fitness of anon-custodial parent is not in doubt, and no continuing supervision will be necessary,the regulations authorize a court to hold the ICPC inapplicable to that parent” 928, andsays the ICPC’s application to non custodial parents should be made at the outset by thefamily court to avoid delays)FLState v. M.A., 215 So. 3d 1276 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2017) (court finds natural father’sfailure to obtain ICPC home study report from Indiana barred placement, as the courthad already acquired jurisdiction of the children through a placement with a relative,but notes there was no “constitutional challenge to the application of the ICPC to anon-offending, noncustodial parent”)Florida has consistently held thatapplication of the ICPC to noncustodial non-resident parents ismandatory, finding exceptions onlywhere a parent’s custody is notinterrupted by any extension ofD.R. v. J.R., 203 So. 3d 952 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2016) (CINA petition where children jurisdiction by a court over a child’sremoved from mother’s care, lower court initially granted agency’s motion to order a placement. It has however allowedAmicus App. 043
ICPC home study before placement with father, but later placed with father afterdismissing dependency petition against father, and mother appealed; court rules onapplication of ICPC regulation 2(3)(a), but that regulation not adopted in Florida; courtultimately remands to allow trial court to determine if in children’s best interests toremain in father’s custody pending completion of ICPC process).out of state placements pendingICPC final approval, if such is inthe child’s best interests. At leastone appellate court has also notedthat such application to a “nonoffending, noncustodial parent” hasDepartment of Children &Families v. C.T., 144 So.3d 684, 686 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. never been directly challenged on2014) (lower court “misinterprets” Department of Children & Families v. L.G., 801 constitutional grounds.So.2d 1047 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001) and subsequent law, reiterating that L.G. stands forproposition ICPC “does not apply when a custodial parent, who has lawful custody ofthe child at all pertinent times and full authority to plan for the child, chooses torelocate to another state” but it does where a court has assumed jurisdiction over achild as “the parent’s situation is not custody or possession as a matter of parental right,but rather it is the same as the position of a foster parent.”).R.F. v. Dep’t of Children and Families, 50 So.3d 1243, 1244 (Fla Dist. Ct. App. 2011)(“Even if an out-of-state placement does not strictly comply with the ICPC, a courtmay allow the child to remain in the out-of-state placement during the ICPC process ifit is in the child’s best interest.”).C.K. v. Department, 949 So. 2d 336 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2007) (ICPC processmandatory for non custodial parent even where not found unfit)Dep’t of Children and Family Services v. K.N., 858 So.2d 1087 (Fla. Ct. App. 2003)(not applicable to return of child to fit, custodial parent after child had been kidnappedby noncustodial parent)H.P. v. Dep’t of Children & Families, 838 So. 2d 583 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2003) (courtupholds mandatory application of ICPC to non-resident parents who had no previouscustodial rights, and comments on purpose, without adopting, regulation 3 “Byamending Regulation 3 in 2001, the Association of Administrators of ICPC (AAICPC)attempted to address the broadening of the scope of the ICPC by the courts and perhapsalleviate any constitutional concerns regarding parent’s rights. The AAICPC hasAmicus App. 044
slightly narrowed the coverage and constraints of the ICPC where placement ofchildren with non-custodial, non-offending parents is concerned. Such a narrowing isconsistent with the purposes of the ICPC (provide a suitable placement of children) andit appears that in the instant case the trial court’s placement of the children with theirnon-custodial, non-offending, out-of-state natural mother is also consistent with theICPC and Regulation 3(6)(b). (Regulation 3(6)(b) requires that there must be evidencethe parent is unfit in order to block the placement).”).State v. L.G, 801 So. 2d 1047 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2001) (ICPC not applicable tointerstate move of mother who already had custody of children “the ICPC requires nosuch notice when a Florida court has decided against foster care and adoption in favorof leaving a dependent child with her mother, and later rules that mother and child arefree to move to another state.” 1048).GAIn re Interest of O. B., 787 S.E.2d 344, 346 (Ga. Ct. App. 2016) (court upholds Georgia has not directly ruled ontermination of parental rights as to mother, but reverses as to father, who amongst other whether application of the ICPC toissues failed to respond to requests for a ICPC home study)non custodial parents is mandatory.It has upheld compliance with its itsIn re R.B., 285 Ga. App. 556 (2007) (rejecting mother’s argument that a juvenile court extension to parents as part ofcould return the children to her in Florida without ICPC approval, as agency continued custody orders ensuringmaintained jurisdiction through existing custody order finding children deprived and corrective actions where a child hasrequiring mother to follow reunification plan; “The mother’s [ICPC] argument is been found deprived; but it hasexpressly premised upon DFCS’s custody of the children having expired due to an found failure to complete an ICPCerroneous extension of the deprivation order.” * 560).home study is an insufficient basisto terminate parental rights.In re Adoption of D. J. F. M, 284 Ga. App. 420, 423 n. 4 (Ga. Ct. App. 2007) (“this casefalls within an exception to the ICPC applicable where a child is brought into thereceiving state by a relative such as a parent or aunt and is left with such relative.”).HIIn re St., 362 P.3d 807 (Haw. Ct. App. 2015) (mother and father appeal termination of Hawaii does not appear to haveparental rights, and allowance by trial court of child’s foster parents to relocate out of addressed the ICPC’s application tostate with child without complying with the ICPC, found to be harmless error).non custodial parents. In one of thefew cases addressing the ICPC, anappellate court found a fosterAmicus App. 045
family’s failure to comply with theICPC prior to relocating with achild, was harmless error.IDIdaho does not appear to haveaddressed the application of theICPC to non custodial parents.ILIn re Marriage of State, 181 Ill. App. 3d 110 (Ill. App. Ct. 1989) (jurisdictional case, Illinois does not appear to havemother obtained divorce and sought custody determination in Illinois, but Washington addressed the application of thecourt had previously appointed a guardian for the children, an aunt that lived in Illinois. ICPC to non custodial parents.Lower court had ruled Washington maintained jurisdiction under ICPC; appeals courtruled children’s best interests and best availability of evidence should have led trialcourt to assume jurisdiction under UCCJA provisions, and only notes the purpose of theICPC is to facilitate states’ cooperation in placements.)INIn re M.W., 130 N.E.3d 114 (Ind. App. 2019) (court dismisses as moot trial court’sholding the ICPC must be complied with for a non custodial parent as home studycompleted, but reiterates long-standing law; “This Court has made clear that the ICPCdoes not apply to placement with an out-of-state parent. In re B.L.P. , 91 N.E.3d 625,630 (Ind. Ct. App. 2018) ("we hold as plainly and unambiguously as possible: unlessand until the statute is amended, the ICPC does not apply to placement with an out-ofstate parent."); see also In re D.B. , 43 N.E.3d 599, 604 (Ind. Ct. App. 2015), trans.denied. Here, Magistrate Ferguson said, "The Court is well aware of the AppellateCourt’s position on an ICPC and respectfully disagrees with their position." Tr. p. 25.”).Indiana has directly ruled that theICPC process of requiring receivingstate approval and conduct of ahome study may not be required ofnon custodial parents.In re B.L.P., 91 N.E.3d 625 (Ind. App. 2018) (court notes frustration with agency andtrial courts despite its ruling in 2015 that the ICPC does not apply; “Notwithstandingthis unambiguous holding, apparently DCS is still requesting—and trial courts are stillgranting—ICPC evaluations for out-of-state parents.”).D.B. v. Ind. Dep’t of Child Servs., 43 N.E.3d 599 (Ind. Ct. App. 2015) (ICPC does notapply to non custodial parents, based upon plain language).IAIn re C.K., No. 18-1784 (Iowa Ct. App. Feb. 20, 2019) (termination of father’s parental Iowa does not appear to haveAmicus App. 046
rights upheld, not for failure to complete the ICPC process but “both the finding thatthe child could not be placed in his care and the non-completion of the ICPC processwere direct results of the father’s "fail[ure] to provide appropriate housing for thischild." ” * 4)In re V.C., 881 N.W.2d 471 (Iowa Ct. App. 2016)directly ruled on whether the ICPCprocess must be complied with fornon custodial parents.Severalappellate court rulings howeverhave noted in various contextslower courts’ ordering of homestudies of non custodial parents,without comment.KSIn re S.r.c.-Q., 52 Kan. App. 2d 454 (Kan. Ct. App. 2016) (court upholds placement of Kansas has ruled that the ICPC doeschild with mother without ICPC approval and holds ICPC does not apply to placements not apply to non custodial parents.with parents; “while the terms of the ICPC as enacted in Kansas explicitly apply to outof-state placements of children with foster parents or as a precursor to adoption, it doesnot explicitly apply to out-of-state placements of children with a parent.” 460).KYMeinders v. Middleton, 572 S.W.3d 52 (Ky. 2019) (CINA finding against motherresulted in temporary custody to other relatives, real father at the time unknown; oncereal father identified lower court ordered home study under ICPC, but it never occurredand lower court re-issued custody to relative; appeals overturned, noting a trial courtshould never order a home study under these circumstances. The statute for ICPC, KRS615.030, clearly states that it "shall not apply to: (a) The sending or bringing of a childinto a receiving state by his parent[.]" This is because the statute requires that the statehave custody of the child before it applies to any sending or receiving of the child toanother state. Here, the state has never had custody of CJS. This is why the study neverhappened and why the trial court lacked authority to order the study.” 59; court alsoreiterates fundamental constitutional rights of parents).Kentucky does not appear to havedirectly ruled on whether the ICPCmust be applied to non custodialparents. Although some appellateopinions mention in dicta withoutcomment a lower court’s orderingof a home study for non custodialparents, on other occasions courtshave specifically ruled home studiesshould not be required where a statenever gains custody of a child; anddenial of ICPC placements with nonH.M.R. v. Cabinet for Health & Family Servs., 521 S.W.3d 221, 227 (Ky. Ct. App. custodial parents insufficient to2017) (termination of father’s parental rights and placement of children for adoption terminate parental rights and placeoverturned; “Father twice requested to set up a case plan and the Cabinet twice failed to child for adoption.give him one to work. When the ICPC assessment was returned, denying placement ofChild with Father, the Cabinet did not attempt to contact Father to work any sort ofplan. The fact that Father’s home and situation was not appropriate for temporaryplacement is not tantamount to a finding that Father would never be able to adequatelyAmicus App. 047
parent Child. While there are certainly valid concerns as to whether Father can be aproper pa
Nance v. Ark. Dep’t Human Servs., 316 Ark. 43, 870 S.W.2d 721 (Ark. 1994) (ICPC only applies to foster care and adoptions, and not custody placements between parents) pursuant to foster care or preliminary to adoption in Ar