367 P.3d 1276
Kan. Ct. App.2016Background
- Child S.R.C.-Q. born in Wisconsin to Mother; Father resides in Kansas. Mother later moved to Kansas with the child; paternity was established in 2014.
- After a protection-from-abuse petition and criminal proceedings against Mother, the child was placed in temporary custody, then a CINC (child in need of care) case was filed and the child placed in state custody in Kansas.
- Wisconsin was the child’s home state but declined jurisdiction as an inconvenient forum; Kansas assumed jurisdiction and requested an expedited ICPC placement decision from Wisconsin.
- Kansas court sought a Wisconsin home-study under the Interstate Compact on Placement of Children (ICPC); Wisconsin’s ICPC report ultimately recommended against placement with Mother because of concerns about Mother’s cohabiting boyfriend.
- Kansas district court concluded the ICPC does not apply to placements with a parent, released the child from DCF custody, placed the child with Mother in Wisconsin, and set a biweekly alternating visitation schedule for Father; Father and the guardian ad litem appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the ICPC applies to out-of-state placements with a natural parent | Appellants (Father/GAL): ICPC applies; a negative Wisconsin home study under ICPC should bar placement with Mother | State/Kansas court: ICPC governs interstate placements into foster care or preliminary adoption only, not parental placements | The ICPC does not apply to placements with a parent; applies only to foster-care or adoptive preliminary placements |
| Whether the district court abused its discretion by placing the child with Mother despite Wisconsin's adverse report | Appellants: Court abused discretion by disregarding Wisconsin’s ICPC home-study and placing the child with Mother | State/Kansas court: Wisconsin’s report was an uninvestigated allegation; Mother completed her service plan; trial court acted within discretion | No abuse of discretion in awarding custody to Mother and terminating CINC proceedings |
| Whether the visitation schedule (alternating two-week periods, exchanges halfway between states) was an abuse of discretion | GAL: visitation order inappropriate given child’s best interests | State/Kansas court: ordered schedule concurrent with termination of state custody | Appeal mooted as district court dismissed CINC and paternity court reviewing; appellate court declined to decide on visitation merits |
Key Cases Cited
- Cady v. Schroll, 298 Kan. 731, 317 P.3d 90 (Kan. 2014) (standard of review for statutory interpretation)
- In re Emoni W., 305 Conn. 723, 48 A.3d 1 (Conn. 2012) (ICPC plain language excludes placement with noncustodial parent; AAICPC regulation cannot expand statute)
- Dependency of D.F.-M., 157 Wash. App. 179, 236 P.3d 961 (Wash. Ct. App. 2010) (ICPC governs substitute parental placements; regulation cannot enlarge statute)
- Arizona Dep’t of Econ. Sec. v. Stanford, 234 Ariz. 477, 323 P.3d 760 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2014) (ICPC applied to parental placement relying on AAICPC Regulation 3)
- Green v. Div. of Family Servs., 864 A.2d 921 (Del. 2004) (ICPC read to encompass placement of a dependent child with noncustodial parent)
- McComb v. Wambaugh, 934 F.2d 474 (3d Cir. 1991) (discussing ICPC as intended to govern placements in substitute parental arrangements)