TARA S. v. Superior Court

California Court of Appeal Mar 10, 1993 No. D018344Published

Before: Wiener

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The Interstate Compact on Placement of Children (ICPC) does not apply to the placement of a child with a noncustodial, nonoffending biological parent in another state. Furthermore, the court's placement of the child with the father did not violate the mother's due process rights.

Issues

Does the Interstate Compact on Placement of Children (ICPC) apply when a child is placed with a noncustodial, nonoffending parent in another state?
Did the court's placement of the child with the father without a contested hearing violate the mother's due process rights?

Disposition. Peremptory writ denied; alternative writ discharged.

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“We therefore conclude the court did not err in not invoking ICPC when it permitted the minor to be detained with her father pending future jurisdictional and dispositional hearings in the juvenile court.”

“There was no violation of due process.”

Opinion

WIENER, J.

On October 7, 1992, a petition was filed alleging the minor, Brianna, was at risk of physical and sexual abuse due to her mother’s substance abuse (Welf. & Inst, § 300, subds. (b) and (d)). The child was placed in a confidential foster home. At the detention hearing on December 10, 1992, the minor’s biological father, Brian C., with the concurrence of the department of social services (DSS) moved to dismiss the petition. The court denied the motion to dismiss believing there would be insufficient safeguards to protect Brianna from her mother’s behavior and possible abduction. The court ordered a short transition and that the child be detained with Brian at his home in Minnesota. The child has been living with her father and stepmother since that time.

Mother complains about the placement saying the court may not detain a child out-of-state without the approval of the receiving state, here Minnesota, under the Interstate Compact on Placement of Children (ICPC) (Civ. Code, § 264 et seq.). The purpose of the ICPC is to facilitate the cooperation between states in the placement and monitoring of dependent children. Article 2, subdivision (d) defines placement as “in a family free or boarding home or in a childcaring agency or institution.” Article 3 sets out conditions for placement which are limited to “foster care or as a preliminary to a possible adoption.” Petitioner relies on an Attorney General’s opinion which states the ICPC applies when a child is placed with a parent in another state (61 Ops.Cal.Atty.Gen. 535, 537 (1978)). The Attorney General interprets the definition of “placement” in article 2, subdivision (d) and concludes that since there is nothing in the term “family free home” to limit it to any particular home it therefore must include the home of the natural mother or father. (61 Ops.Cal.Atty.Gen.,

supra,

at p. 539.) We disagree. Such an interpretation does not make sense in light of article 3 which limits the ICPC to foster care and possible adoption—neither of which would involve natural parents. As pointed out in

McComb

Wambaugh

(3d cir. 1991) 934 F.2d 474, article 2, subdivision (d) limits the places where minors may be placed, not the persons with whom they may be placed

(McComb

TARA S. v. Superior Court

AI Brief

WIENER, J.

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief