Tools  >  Return of the Month
October 2016: Non Voluntary Return - Absconder
October 2016: Non Voluntary Return - Absconder

Your Name:Abbie Christian

Your State:Nebraska

Your Role:Deputy Compact Administrator

Type of Return:Non Voluntary Return - Absconder

Rule(s) Applied: Rule 6-102 & 6-103A

Circumstances of the return:
NE probation absconder picked up in Holding State. The youth was adjudicated of a status offense (Truancy) in NE and had been placed on probation for this offense. As a condition of her probation, she was placed on EM. The youth cut her EM bracelet and absconded from NE. She was entered as a missing person in NCIC and also had an active warrant issued by NE Court. The youth was located by law enforcement in another state and held in order to be returned to NE pursuant to ICJ rules. The Holding State scheduled a Form III hearing. The youth refused to sign the Form III and return to NE voluntarily. NE was notified by the Holding State to start the Requisition process. NE proceeded to prepare the Requisition which was then submitted to the Holding State via JIDS. The Holding State ultimately accepted the Requisition and ordered the youth’s return to NE. The youth was safely returned to NE.

How the ICJ Rules assisted in the return:
ICJ rules address the process of returning a youth who does not agree to return voluntarily. (Rule 6-103 & Rule 6-103A)

Issues that occurred in the course of the return:
1) Holding State Court allowed youth to be released into the Holding State’s community on EM after the Requisition had been submitted by NE. Holding State Court did not believe the youth should be held in the detention center and felt EM could be classified as a form of detention. NE ICJ and Holding State ICJ both agreed that EM is not considered detention under ICJ rules but had difficulty convincing the Court.
2) Holding State Court debated which ICJ rule would apply for the non-voluntary return of this youth since the youth was an adjudicated status offender rather that an adjudicated delinquent. NE ICJ believed Rule 6-103A should be applied as the youth was on probation in NE and absconded from probation supervision.
3) After the Holding State Court accepted the Requisition, the Court did place the youth in detention pending her return but indicated they would reconsider allowing the youth to be released on EM if NE did not return the youth within 5 days (even though ICJ rules allow 5 business days)

What didn’t the ICJ Rules address with regard to the return:
Adjudicated Status Offenders are not specifically mentioned in the Non-Voluntary Return rule. There was debate around the issue of whether the youth could be considered an absconder since she was not adjudicated of a delinquent offense. NE ICJ believes she should be considered an absconder since she was placed on probation for her adjudicated status offense.

Tip(s) Learned:
NE ICJ was invited to participate in the Requisition hearing by the Holding State’s Court. NE ICJ took advantage of this opportunity and was able to advocate for ICJ rules and the viewpoint of NE. The Holding State Court was very receptive to the information offered by the NE ICJ. Collaboration with the Holding State ICJ office was also key.

Posted on Monday, October 17, 2016 (Archive on Thursday, November 17, 2016)
Posted by JAdkins  Contributed by JAdkins