Advisory Opinion 3-2011

Because the Interstate Compact for Juveniles (ICJ) is a contract between the states, its terms must be given their ordinary meaning and interpreted within the “four corners” of the document.  Thus, the definition of the term “juvenile” also defines the “universe” of individuals subject to the revised ICJ.  Additionally, this and other Compact terms are defined broadly to avoid an overly narrow reading or application of the provisions of the ICJ and its authorized rules.  The Commission’s rules also have definitions, consistent with the Compact statute, which must also be examined in addition to the terms of the Compact.

The definitions of “Juvenile” and “Non-offender” in the text of the Compact clearly intend that juveniles who are “in need of supervision who have not been accused or adjudicated a status offender or delinquent” could be subject to the Compact, including a juvenile sex offender sentenced under a “plea and abeyance” order, even though neither special conditions nor a probation officer have been assigned.   

While no probation officer has been assigned, the juvenile in question has been ordered to report to the Attorney General’s office for appropriate disposition and may be subject to the ICJ depending on the requirements of the sentencing order.  Clearly, this constitutes “supervision” as defined by the ICJ Rules.

For example, a sex offender who is required to complete other terms and conditions such as a sex offender treatment or counseling program including any periodic reports required to be filed with the court or other agency, in addition to merely requiring the juvenile to  comply with all laws, is not in actuality an “unsupervised juvenile”  As such the relocation of such juveniles under such sentences is subject to the jurisdiction of the Interstate Compact for Juveniles and applications for transfer should continue to be submitted and investigated as required under the Compact.

Once determined to be under supervision and transferred under the ICJ, Rule 5-101(1) requires that a “receiving state will assume the duties of supervision over any juvenile, and in exercise of those duties will be governed by the same standards of supervision that prevail for its own juveniles released on probation or parole…”  The language of this rule assumes that there will be some level of supervision in the receiving state.  By definition this rule does not permit the receiving state to provide no supervision and, at a minimum, the rules of the Compact contemplate that such a juvenile will be under some supervision for the duration of the sentence under the plea and abeyance order imposed by the sending state.

Moreover, during such period the juvenile would be subject to enforcement of the required sex offender counseling or treatment program under ICJ Rule 5-101(3)and the required progress reports under ICJ Rule 5-101(4).  Reporting instructions would be required as called for under ICJ Rule 4-103(1) (or ICJ Rule 4-104(6), for a juvenile not categorized as a sex offender).  Any fees incurred for treatment could be imposed on the sending state as authorized under ICJ Rule 5-101(5). Home evaluations are required to be conducted in compliance with ICJ Rule 4-102(4). Collection of restitution, fines and other costs would be treated as permitted or required under ICJ Rule 5-101(7) – (8). The travel and transfer of the offender to a subsequent receiving state is subject to ICJ Rules 8-101 and 4-103.  The closing of such a case would be governed by ICJ Rule 5-104 and, if necessary, the juvenile could be ‘retaken’ by pursuant to the requirements of Rules 5-103 and 5-103A.