In re: Isaiah R.
2015 Tenn. App. LEXIS 639
| Tenn. Ct. App. | 2015Background
- Child born drug-exposed Nov. 2011; father incarcerated; Child initially placed with a Tennessee foster mother (registered nurse) who provided extensive care and therapies.
- DCS placed the Child with paternal great-uncle and great-aunt in California under the Interstate Compact on the Placement of Children (the Compact); California’s approval required a waiver due to great-aunt’s prior DUI and included a monitoring condition.
- After initial approval, California discovered undisclosed adverse facts (great-aunt’s second DUI, marijuana use while leaving the Child with other adults in the home, and a domestic-violence–related 9-1-1 call involving an adult son) and withdrew approval.
- DCS returned the Child to Tennessee and to the foster mother; Father stipulated to dependency and neglect but advocated re-transfer of custody to the great-uncle in California.
- Trial Court dismissed DCS, found the Compact inapplicable, and awarded custody to the great-uncle in California; DCS appealed.
- Court of Appeals held the Compact applied, that California had withdrawn approval (so the Compact was violated), and that even absent the Compact the California placement was unsuitable; reversed and returned custody to DCS.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Interstate Compact applies to the court-ordered transfer of custody to out-of-state relatives | DCS: Compact applies to interstate placements arranged or approved by a sending state agency/court; sister-state approval is required | Respondents: Transfer to relatives is a custody decision among family, not a "placement" within the Compact; exemptions apply | Compact applies; Trial Court violated Compact by transferring Child to California after California withdrew approval; reversal required |
| Whether placing the Child with the great-uncle in California was a proper disposition even if Compact did not apply | DCS: California withdrawal and adverse facts (DUIs, marijuana use, domestic-violence incident, nondisclosure) show placement unsuitable | Respondents: Blood relationship and child’s best interest favor placement with paternal relatives | Even if Compact inapplicable, Trial Court erred: the California home was not a suitable placement given the troubling facts; placement reversed |
Key Cases Cited
- J.D.S. v. Franks, 893 P.2d 732 (Ariz. 1995) (definition and scope of a "family free" home)
- In re: Yarisha F., 994 A.2d 296 (Conn. App. 2010) (court may not place child out of state without receiving state approval under the Compact)
- In re Adoption of Infants H., 904 N.E.2d 197 (Mass. 2009) (article III conditions of Compact require receiving-state involvement and approval)
- In re Luke L., 44 Cal. Rptr. 2d 53 (Cal. Ct. App. 1995) (reversal where juvenile court ordered out-of-state placement without receiving-state approval)
- Bogan v. Bogan, 60 S.W.3d 721 (Tenn. 2001) (standard of review for trial-court factual findings)