In Re: R.S., 235 A.3d 914

In 2016 Worcester County DSS removed R.S. from her mother (S.S.) and filed a CINA petition; paternity testing later established T.S. as the biological father who lived in Delaware.
The juvenile court sustained the CINA allegations against the mother and continued disposition; the court ordered services and supervised then unsupervised visits between T.S. and R.S.
The juvenile court ordered ICPC home studies for placement in Delaware; a Delaware social worker declined placement with T.S. but approved placement with the paternal grandparents after an ICPC study.
The juvenile court treated the ICPC process as applicable to placement with the non-custodial biological father and proceeded with disposition and custody decisions relying on the ICPC report.
The Court of Special Appeals held the ICPC does not apply to out-of-state placements with biological parents, vacated the CINA and custody orders, and remanded for further proceeding; the Court of Appeals of Maryland affirmed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Does the ICPC apply to out-of-state placement with a non-custodial biological parent?	Worcester County DSS: ICPC applies when a court or agency places a child out-of-state; AAICPC model regulations and COMAR include parental placements; statutes must be liberally construed.	R.S./T.S.: Plain language of Fam. Law §5-604 limits ICPC to foster and pre-adoptive placements; parental placements are neither.	The ICPC does not apply to placements with non-custodial biological parents; regulations/COMAR that expand the ICPC to parental placements conflict with the statute and are invalid.
Was the CINA finding and denial of custody to the father proper absent a finding of his unfitness?	DSS: Juvenile court properly relied on ICPC home study and receiving-state findings to deny custody to T.S.; later custody award to T.S. and grandparents was within discretion.	R.S./T.S.: No adjudication or findings that T.S. was unfit; court should have dismissed CINA as to father and awarded custody to him (or held a fitness hearing).	Because ICPC does not apply and the court never found T.S. unfit, the CINA order (and related custody determination) was vacated; additional hearing on custody preference/fitness warranted.

Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57 (2000) (parents have fundamental right to care, custody, and control of their children)
Stanley v. Illinois, 405 U.S. 645 (1972) (due process requires a hearing on parental fitness before removing custody)
McComb v. Wambaugh, 934 F.2d 474 (3d Cir. 1991) (ICPC does not apply to parental placements)
In re Yve S., 373 Md. 551 (2003) (foster/out-of-home placement excludes biological-parent homes)
In re Adoption/Guardianship No. 3598, 347 Md. 295 (1997) (ICPC purpose: facilitate foster and pre-adoptive interstate placements)
In re Cadence B., 417 Md. 146 (2010) (ICPC relative exemption interpretation)
In re R.S., 242 Md. App. 338 (2019) (Court of Special Appeals opinion vacating CINA and ruling ICPC inapplicable)