When a North Carolina court or county DSS sends a child to live with the child's parent, grandparent, or other relative who lives in another state, does the Interstate Compact on the Placement of Children apply, or is this kind of relative placement exempt?
Plain-English summary
The Secretary of the NC Department of Human Resources, Dr. Sarah Morrow, asked AG Edmisten a recurring practical question for the county departments of social services. When a NC court or county DSS arranges for a child to leave NC and live with a relative (a parent, grandparent, aunt, uncle, or guardian) in another state, does the Interstate Compact on the Placement of Children (ICPC) apply? Some agencies thought relative placements were a sort of family arrangement outside the ICPC's reach.
Assistant AG Steven Shaber, for AG Edmisten, said no exception applies; the ICPC governs the placement. The analysis was straightforward:
-
The "sending agency" definition in Article II(b) of the ICPC includes a state subdivision, an officer or employee of a state, a court, or any person/corporation/association/agency that sends or causes to be sent a child to another party state. A NC court or county DSS sending a child to another state fits the definition exactly.
-
The "placement" definition in Article II(d) covers "the arrangement for the care of a child in a family free or boarding home or in a child-caring agency or institution." It excludes only specific narrow categories (institutional care for the mentally ill or epileptic, hospital or other medical care, education). A child going to live with relatives in another state is a "placement" within the definition.
-
The Article VIII(a) exception removes from the Compact's coverage "the sending or bringing of a child into a receiving state by his parent, step-parent, grandparent, adult brother or sister, adult uncle or aunt, or his guardian and leaving the child with such relative or nonagency guardian in the receiving state." The AG's key textual reading: the exception requires that the relative both send and receive the child. If the NC sending agency is doing the sending and a relative is merely receiving, the Article VIII(a) exception does not apply.
Result: NC sending agencies must comply with Article III's requirements before sending the child to another state. Article III imposes notice, documentation, and consent procedures, including providing written notice to the receiving state's compact administrator and obtaining the receiving state's approval of the placement before the child moves. Failure to follow these procedures puts the NC agency in violation of the Compact and exposes the child to risk if the receiving state has not verified the suitability of the receiving home.
The opinion noted no NC cases construed the Compact at the time, but said the plain text was clear and the result was consistent with (even essential to) the Compact's protective purposes. The point of the Compact is to ensure children placed across state lines get appropriate care; that protection works only if all agency-arranged placements are routed through the formal review process, including ones to relatives.
Currency note
This opinion was issued in 1982. Subsequent statutory amendments, court decisions, or later AG opinions may have changed the analysis. Treat this page as historical context, not current legal advice. Verify current law before relying on any specific rule, deadline, or remedy mentioned here. The ICPC itself has been amended by member states, and a revised compact (the Interstate Compact for the Placement of Children, or "ICPC 2007") has been proposed and partially adopted, though the original text remains in force in most states. The federal Adoption and Safe Families Act of 1997 created federal funding consequences for non-compliant interstate placements, increasing the practical importance of strict ICPC adherence. Anyone working a current interstate placement question must read the current NC statutes (now renumbered to G.S. ch. 7B Article XX or related sections in some references) and consult the NC ICPC office for current procedures.
Background and statutory framework
The Interstate Compact on the Placement of Children was originally drafted in 1960 by a group of state child-welfare administrators and the federal Children's Bureau. The drafters were responding to the problem of children being moved across state lines without adequate vetting of the receiving home, sometimes resulting in placement failures, abuse, or children effectively trafficked between states. NC adopted the Compact in 1971.
The Compact's architecture is simple: a "sending agency" in one party state cannot send a child to a "receiving state" for placement in foster care, pre-adoptive placement, or with anyone other than certain immediate family, without first complying with Article III. Article III requires the sending agency to file a written request with the receiving state's compact administrator, providing specified information about the child and the receiving home, and to wait for the receiving state's written approval before the child can be sent.
The Article VIII(a) exception is narrowly drawn. It covers situations where the immediate family does the moving themselves: a parent picks the child up and takes the child to live with grandma in another state. In that fact pattern, no agency or court is acting, the family is making its own decisions, and the Compact's vetting structure would be both unnecessary and intrusive.
But when a NC court or DSS is the one arranging the placement, the AG read the exception as inapplicable, even if the receiving party is a relative. The court or agency is the "sending" party; the relative is only the "receiving" party. The exception requires both ends of the move to be done by a relative. Reading the exception to cover agency-to-relative placements would gut the Compact's coverage of much of the foster-care system, since many DSS placements involve relatives.
The protective purpose underscored the textual reading. ICPC's home-study procedure ensures the receiving home has been evaluated for safety and suitability by the receiving state's child welfare authority. Skipping that step for relative placements would be exactly the kind of administrative shortcut that the Compact was designed to prevent. Relatives can be appropriate placements, but they require the same upfront vetting that any other placement does when an agency is making the decision.
Common questions
What did "party state" mean?
All 50 states, plus DC and the U.S. Virgin Islands, are party states to the ICPC. The Compact applies to all placements between these jurisdictions. There is no version of the Compact that allows opting out for a specific placement.
What if the receiving state's compact administrator never responded?
The standard practice was that without affirmative approval from the receiving state, the sending agency could not lawfully complete the placement. In practice, delay was a common problem and led to many emergency-relief workarounds. Today, time standards are more clearly defined and several states have moved to electronic processing.
Did this apply to a parent who was going through divorce or custody proceedings?
The Compact addressed agency- and court-arranged placements. A parent moving to another state with their child as part of normal residential life, where no agency was acting and no court placement was occurring, did not trigger the Compact. The trigger was a sending agency arranging the placement, not the geographic location of the child.
What were the consequences of non-compliance?
Non-compliance with the Compact could result in: (a) the receiving state refusing to recognize the placement and possibly returning the child, (b) violations of the sending agency's licensing requirements, and (c) under federal funding rules adopted after 1997, loss of federal foster-care reimbursement for the placement. The AG opinion was a reminder that compliance was the only safe path.
Source
Citations
- N.C. Gen. Stat. § 110-57.1 (Interstate Compact on the Placement of Children)
- N.C. Gen. Stat. § 110-57.1, art. I
- N.C. Gen. Stat. § 110-57.1, art. II(b)
- N.C. Gen. Stat. § 110-57.1, art. II(d)
- N.C. Gen. Stat. § 110-57.1, art. III(a)
- N.C. Gen. Stat. § 110-57.1, art. VIII(a)
Original opinion text
Requested By: Sarah T. Morrow, M.D., M.P.H. Secretary North Carolina Department of Human Resources
Question: Does the Interstate Compact on the Placement of Children, G.S. 110-57.1, et seq., apply when a North Carolina child is sent by a court, government agency, or child-placing agency to live with a parent, relative, or guardian in another party state?
Conclusion: Yes.
The purpose of the Interstate Compact on the Placement of Children, G.S. 110-57.1, et seq., is to promote cooperation among the several states in the interstate placement of children so that each child placed pursuant to the Compact will be given "a necessary and desirable degree and type of care" and so that the authorities in the state where the child is placed, in cooperation with the authorities in the state from which the placement is made, can ascertain that the placement is a good one. See, G.S. 110-57.1, Article I. To that end, Article III of the Compact provides as follows:
"(a) No sending agency shall send, bring or cause to be sent or brought into any other party state any child for placement in foster care or as a preliminary to a possible adoption unless the sending agency shall comply with each and every requirement set forth in this Article and with the applicable laws of the receiving state governing the placement of children therein."
The important terms of Article III(a) are defined. Thus, a "sending agency" means an officer or employee of a party state or its subdivision, or the subdivision itself, a court of a party state, or any person, corporation, association, charitable agency or any other entity "which sends, brings, or causes to be sent or brought any child to another party state." G.S. 110-57.1, Article II(b).
The act of "placement" is "the arrangement for the care of a child in a family free or boarding home or in a child-caring agency or institution". However, placement excludes the arrangement of institutional care for the mentally ill, mentally defective or epileptic, hospital or other medical care, or education. G.S. 110-57.1, Article II(d).
Finally, the Compact contains this limitation:
"This Compact shall not apply to: (a) the sending or bringing of a child into a receiving state by his parent, step-parent, grandparent, adult brother or sister, adult uncle or aunt, or his guardian and leaving the child with such relative or nonagency guardian in the receiving state." G.S. 11057.1, Article VIII(a).
Under the statutes just quoted, it is clear that the answer to the question posed is yes, the Interstate Compact on the Placement of Children does apply when a North Carolina child is sent by court, governmental agency, or child-placing agency to live with a parent, relative or a guardian in another party state. First, North Carolina courts, governmental agencies, and childplacing agencies are all "sending agencies" as defined in Article II(b). Second, the act described certainly is "placement" as defined in Article II(d) of the Compact. Finally, the limitation set forth in Article VIII simply does not apply. In order for that limitation to apply, the child must be both sent and received by a parent, relative, or guardian. That is not the case in the situation described.
It should be noted that there are no North Carolina cases construing the Compact. However, the plain language of the Compact leaves no doubt that the answer to the question posed is as is set forth above, and the answer is perfectly consistent with – even essential to – the purposes of the Compact.
Rufus L. Edmisten
Attorney General
Steven Mansfield Shaber
Assistant Attorney General