Non-Voluntary Returns
Since some juveniles will not voluntarily return, the ICJ Rules set forth procedures for non-voluntary returns to be used when juveniles in custody refuse to voluntarily return and when juveniles whose whereabouts are known need to be picked up and detained pending return. When the juvenile is a runaway or accused status offender, the non-voluntary return process begins with the legal guardian or custodial agency filing of a requisition in accordance with ICJ Rule 6-103(3)(a) - (c)Where the juvenile is an absconder, escapee, or accused delinquent, a requisition must be filed in accordance with ICJ Rule 6-103A(3).
The obligation of member states to honor requisitions under the ICJ is widely recognized. For example, in State v. Cook, the court held that an adult defendant who was properly charged under Texas law with a crime while a child was subject to the jurisdiction of the Texas Juvenile Court. Thus, pursuant to the ICJ, the Washington Court was required to honor Texas' rendition request and return the juvenile to Texas, despite the defendant's claim that he was no longer a juvenile. 64 P.3d 58, 58 (Wash. Ct. App. 2003) (“The Uniform Interstate Compact for Juveniles . . . governs, among other things, the return from one state to another of delinquent juveniles who have escaped or absconded. Both Washington and Texas adopted the Compact.”). The Court analogized return pursuant to the compact to extradition and held that the return proceedings were applicable even after the offender had become an adult if the crimes in question were committed as a juvenile, stating, “Cook contends the Compact does not apply to him because he is not a juvenile. The State responds that because the Texas juvenile court had jurisdiction under Texas law and Texas made a proper rendition request, the Compact requires Washington to honor the demand. We agree.” Id at 59. “[E]xtradition cases have typically looked to the law of the demanding state to determine whether the person charged is a juvenile. Cases under the Uniform Criminal Extradition Act have likewise found the demanding state's determination of juvenile status controlling.” Id.; see also In re State, 97 S.W.3d 744, 745 (Tex. App. 2003) (demanding state's requisition under Interstate Compact for Juveniles for return of juvenile from the holding state was “in order,” and thus judge of asylum state was required to return the juvenile to the demanding state upon receipt of the requisition).
To affect such a return, the appropriate person or authority in the home/demanding state shall prepare a written requisition within sixty (60) calendar days of notification of a refusal to voluntarily return. Upon receipt of the requisition, the court where the juvenile is located is required to order the juvenile to be held pending a hearing on the requisition, if not already in custody. A hearing on the requisition must be held within thirty (30) calendar days of receipt of the requisition. See ICJ Rules 6-103, 6-103A (Interstate Comm’n for Juveniles 2024). Once in detention, the juvenile may be held for a maximum of ninety (90) calendar days, pending non-voluntary return to the home/demanding state. Id. The holding/receiving state’s age of majority laws determine whether the juvenile shall be held in a juvenile or adult facility. Id. at Rule 7-105(1). Also, ICJ Ad. Op. 03-2012 (Interstate Comm’n for Juveniles, 2012).
Neither the ICJ nor its rules require that a juvenile to have an active record in the National Crime Information Center (NCIC) for a holding state judge to honor a home/demanding state’s requisition. If a court refuses to take action on a requisition unless there is an active record in NCIC, the holding state judge is essentially creating a new requirement, which is outside of the Compact and therefore is in conflict with the Compact. See ICJ Rules 6-103, 6-103A (Interstate Comm’n for Juveniles 2024); ICJ Ad. Op. 04-2021 (Interstate Comm’n for Juveniles 2021). Moreover, ICJ Rule 6-103(6) makes it clear that, “The purpose of said hearing [in the holding state] is to determine proof of entitlement for the return of the juvenile.” The home/demanding state is responsible for determining the best interest of the child. For further discussion, see supra Section 4.3.
Upon determination that proof of entitlement is established, the court shall order the juvenile’s return to the home/demanding state. The ICJ Rules define “proof of entitlement” as “documentation or other evidence submitted as part of a requisition that enables a court to verify the authority of the requisitioner to the return of a juvenile.” See ICJ Rule 1-101 (Interstate Comm’n for Juveniles 2024). If proof of entitlement is not established, the Rule requires the court to issue written findings providing the reason(s) for denial. Requisitioned juveniles must be returned within five (5) business days after receipt of the order granting the requisition and shall be accompanied during their return to the home/demanding state, unless both ICJ Offices determine otherwise. Id. at Rule 6-103A(9).
Juveniles are to be returned only after charges are resolved when pending charges exist in the holding/receiving state, unless consent is given by the holding/receiving and demanding/sending states’ courts and ICJ Offices. Id. at Rule 7-103. ICJ Offices should collaborate to ensure the timely return of the juvenile once pending charges have been resolved. In addition to being responsible for the juvenile’s return within five (5) business days on notice that the requisition has been honored, the home/demanding state is responsible for the costs of transportation and for making transportation arrangements. Id. at Rule 7-101.
When the out-of-state juvenile is a runaway or accused status offender, courts are sometime called upon to address cases in which the legal guardian or custodial agency in the home/demanding state is unable or refuses to initiate the requisition process. In such cases, another appropriate authority in the home/demanding state is required to do so. Id. at Rule 6-103(10). In J.T. v. State, the Court upheld the return of a juvenile, under the ICJ, to a Kansas facility from which she had run away, holding that the juvenile's due process rights were not violated when the court issued an order to have her returned without having made a finding that it was in juvenile's best interests to be returned. 954 P.2d 174, 176 (Okla. Civ. App. 1997) (“No law requires a finding by an Oklahoma court that it is in Appellant's best interests to be returned to Kansas, nor has it been shown that the Interstate Compact for Juveniles is constitutionally infirm for not requiring such a finding.”); accord In re State, 97 S.W.3d 744, 746 (Tex. App. 2003) (“Following these requirements, the duty of a judge receiving a proper requisition must perform the ministerial act or duty of ordering the juvenile to return to the demanding state.”); In re Stacy B., 741 N.Y.S.2d 644 (N.Y. Fam. Ct. 2002).
Courts and ICJ offices should also be aware of the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act (UCCJEA), a uniform law approved by the Uniform Law Commission. UCCJEA is another means by which courts are authorized to exercise emergency jurisdiction in cases involving family abuse and limits the relief available in emergency cases to temporary custody orders. However, UCCJEA is not generally relevant to ICJ cases.
In cases where the juvenile is identified as an absconder, questions may arise regarding whether the juvenile is in fact an absconder. The ICJ Rules define “absconder” as a “juvenile probationer or parolee who hides, conceals or absents him/herself so that he/she is unavailable for the legal process or authorized control.” See ICJ Rule 1-101(Interstate Comm’n for Juveniles 2024). It is noteworthy that this definition was amended in 2022 to remove the reference to the juveniles “intent,” so that evidence regarding the juvenile’s intent is not required. For further discussion of absconders under ICJ supervision, see supra Section 3.7.5.
PRACTICE NOTE:
The ICJ and its rules impose upon the member states (including courts of a member state) an absolute prohibition against admitting a juvenile to bond when the home/demanding state enters a warrant into NCIC as a “not eligible for bond.” ICJ Rule 7-104(4) (Interstate Comm’n for Juveniles 2024)