Opinion ID: 852370
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Compliance with the Interstate Compact

Text: Among the most important safeguards for children, whom it is contemplated will be sent to live with adoptive parents in another state, is the Interstate Compact on the Placement of Children. The Department contends that the adoption court did not comply with the Compact. Counsel for Petitioner does not dispute this. Both Indiana and New Jersey are parties to the Compact. Our General Assembly has embraced the large objectives of the Compact, two of which are ensuring that the appropriate authorities in a state where a child is to be placed have full opportunity to ascertain the circumstances of the proposed placement and providing the sending state with the most complete information on the basis of which to evaluate a projected placement before the placement is made. Ind.Code § 31-28-4-1 (2008) (article I). The operational elements of the Compact function as follows: (a) A sending agency [1] may not send, bring, or cause to be sent or brought into any other party state a child for placement in foster care or as a preliminary to a possible adoption unless the sending agency complies with each requirement under article III and with the receiving state's laws governing the placement of children. (b) Before sending, bringing, or causing any child to be sent or brought into a receiving state for placement in foster care or as a preliminary to a possible adoption, the sending agency shall furnish the appropriate public authorities in the receiving state written notice of the intention to send, bring, or place the child in the receiving state. The notice shall contain the following: (1) The child's name, place, and date of birth. (2) The identity and address or addresses of the child's parents or legal guardian. (3) The name and address of the person, agency, or institution to or with which the sending agency proposes to send, bring, or place the child. (4) A full statement of the reasons for the proposed action and evidence of the authority under which the placement is proposed to be made. (c) A public officer or agency in a receiving state that receives a notice under paragraph (b) of article III is entitled, upon request, to receive additional information necessary to carry out the purpose and policy of this compact from the sending agency or any other appropriate officer or agency of or in the sending agency's state. (d) The child shall not be sent, brought, or caused to be sent or brought into the receiving state until the appropriate public authorities in the receiving state shall notify the sending agency, in writing, to the effect that the proposed placement does not appear to be contrary to the interests of the child. Ind.Code § 31-28-4-1 (article III). The conditions for placement set forth in article III of the Compact are designed to provide complete and accurate information regarding children and potential adoptive parents from a sending state to a receiving state and to involve public authorities in the process in order to ensure children have the opportunity to be placed in a suitable environment. See Ind. Code ch. 31-28-4 (article I, article III). The adoption court was on the right track when it indicated early on that it would not grant the adoption without complete Compact compliance. (Tr. at 8-9.) The Department's office in Marion County set this process in motion by notifying Indiana's central Compact office, which requested New Jersey's Compact office to evaluate Petitioner's suitability as an adoptive parent. New Jersey officials contacted Petitioner, who declined to participate, saying that he was a resident of Indiana. (Exhibits Vol. I, Ex. A at 10.) The adoption court appointed a guardian ad litem, who supplied a home study from a person in New Jersey, but there is nothing in the record that the adoption court had been notified in writing by New Jersey state authorities that the proposed placement does not appear to be contrary to the interests of the child. Ind.Code § 31-28-4-1 (article III). Indeed, the Adoption GAL never expressed an opinion on whether the adoption was in the best interests of the Infants H, though she did testify that she saw no reason the court should not grant the adoption. (Tr. at 209, 222-23; Appellant's App. at 9-35.) Indiana retains jurisdiction over the Infants H because of the Compact. Article V of the Compact governs jurisdiction and provides as follows: The sending agency shall retain jurisdiction over the child sufficient to determine all matters relating to the custody, supervision, care, treatment and disposition of the child, which the sending agency would have had if the child had remained in the sending agency's state... Ind.Code § 31-28-4-1 (article V). See In the Matter of C.B., 616 N.E.2d 763 (Ind.Ct.App.1993).