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 child to Kansas, then returned to Wisconsin after criminal charges.
- Kansas CINC proceedings placed the child in state custody and approved placement with paternal grandparents; Mother completed most court-ordered services.
- Kansas court requested an ICPC home-study from Wisconsin for placement with Mother; Wisconsin delayed and ultimately denied placement citing concerns about Mother's cohabiting boyfriend.
- Kansas district court found (as a matter of law) the Interstate Compact on the Placement of Children (ICPC) does not apply to out-of-state placements with a parent, not just foster/adoptive placements.
- The district court released DCF custody, placed the child with Mother in Wisconsin, ordered a biweekly alternating visitation schedule for Father, and dismissed the CINC case; Father and 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: ICPC should cover parental placements; Wisconsin's adverse home-study bars placement | State/District Court: ICPC applies only to foster-care/adoption-type placements; parental placements are outside statute's scope | ICPC does not apply to placements with a parent; applies only to foster care or placements preliminary to adoption |
| Whether Kansas must follow AAICPC Regulation 3 to extend ICPC to parental placements | Appellants: Regulation 3 explicitly covers placements with parents when parent is not making placement | State/District Court: Regulation 3 cannot expand the statute; regulations lack authority to enlarge statutory scope | Regulation 3 cannot be used to enlarge the ICPC beyond the statute; court refuses to rely on it |
| Whether the district court abused its discretion by placing the child with Mother despite Wisconsin's negative home-study | Appellants: Wisconsin's home-study recommendation should have prevented placement | Mother/District Court: Home-study contained uninvestigated allegation; Mother completed services and court evaluated best interests | No abuse of discretion; court reasonably relied on the record and Mother's compliance with plan |
| Whether the visitation schedule was an abuse of discretion | Guardian: alternating 2-week blocks unduly burdensome / inappropriate | District Court: adopted schedule as temporary order; later proceedings in paternity action may modify | Court deemed issue moot due to termination of CINC and ongoing paternity proceedings; appellate court declined to decide |
Key Cases Cited
- Cady v. Schroll, 298 Kan. 731 (Kansas 2014) (standard of statutory interpretation and review)
- In re Emoni W., 305 Conn. 723 (Conn. 2012) (ICPC does not encompass placement with a noncustodial parent; regulation cannot expand statute)
- Dependency of D.F.-M., 157 Wash. App. 179 (Wash. Ct. App. 2007) (ICPC governs substitute parental arrangements; parental placement excluded)
- Arizona Dept. of Economic Sec. v. Stanford, 234 Ariz. 477 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2014) (applied ICPC to parental placement relying on AAICPC Regulation 3)
- Green v. Division of Family Servs., 864 A.2d 921 (Del. 2004) (construing ICPC to encompass placement with noncustodial parent)