Interstate Compact on the Placement of Children does not apply to parent–child reunification (M/O D.L. v. S.B.).

This case concerned whether the Interstate Compact for the Placement of Children applies when children are sent to live with an out-of-state parent. In a unanimous decision, the Court (Cannataro, A.C.J.) held that it does not.

The Interstate Compact for the Placement of Children is an agreement between the 50 States and the District of Columbia. When a state agency wishes to “place” a child in another State, the sending agency must notify the receiving State, which will then study whether the proposed placement is in the child’s interests. The sending agency may place the child only after the receiving State approves the placement.

In this case, the Suffolk County Department of Social Services removed the child from her mother’s custody for inadequate guardianship. Her father, who lived in North Carolina, petitioned Family Court for custody. While his petition was pending, Family Court invoked the Interstate Compact and asked North Carolina whether it would approve the placement. North Carolina denied the request, and so Family Court denied the father’s petition. The Second Department affirmed.

The Court of Appeals reversed. As it explained, the Interstate Compact applies only to “placements,” which the Compact defines as “the arrangement for the care of a child in a family free or boarding home or in a child-caring agency or institution.” As the Compact explains, it governs placements “in foster care or as a preliminary to a possible adoption.” Sending a child across state lines, the Court held, is therefore not a “placement” within the meaning of the Compact. The Court observed that the Compact’s purpose also supported its reading. The Compact, the Court noted, was intended to regulate interstate foster-care and adoptive arrangements, not to interfere with efforts to reunite children with their biological parents. The Court’s holding aligned with many other state high courts to have considered the identical issue.

In ruling that the Compact did not apply, the Court rejected a seemingly contrary regulation adopted by the agency that administers the Compact. The Court reaffirmed the bedrock principle that a regulation “inconsistent with its enabling legislation” lacks “effect.”