You are here: / / THE INTERSTATE COMPACT FOR THE PLACEMENT OF CHILDREN (ICPC) APPLIES ONLY...
, , ,

THE INTERSTATE COMPACT FOR THE PLACEMENT OF CHILDREN (ICPC) APPLIES ONLY TO OUT-OF-STATE ADOPTION OR FOSTER CARE, NOT TO THE PLACEMENT OF A CHILD WITH AN OUT-OF-STATE PARENT; QUESTION CONSIDERED ON APPEAL AS AN EXCEPTION TO THE MOOTNESS DOCTRINE; REGULATION RELIED ON TO APPLY THE ICPC CONFLICTS WITH THE CONTROLLING STATUTE (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Family Court, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Webber, in a matter of first impression, and refusing to follow the 2nd Department, determined that the Interstate Compact for the Placement of Children (ICPC) applies only to children to be adopted or placed in foster care in another state, not, as here, to the placement of a child with the father in another state. The issue was considered on appeal as an exception to the mootness doctrine because it is likely to reoccur. The First Department held that the controlling statute, Social Services Law 374-a,  clearly states that the ICPC applies only to out of state foster care or adoption, and the regulation which states otherwise (Association of Administrators of the Interstate Compact on the Placement of Children. AAICPC, Regulation 3) improperly expands the statutory language:

There is no dispute that the ICPC was intended to provide children in need of foster and adoptive families with more possible placements across state lines. The purpose of the statute was twofold: to assure the placement would be in a child’s best interests, and to preclude the “sending State from exporting its foster care responsibilities to a receiving State” … . Thus the ICPC was enacted to provide children in need of foster and adoptive families with more options, while still paying heed to concerns about the children’s welfare.

There is also nothing in the language of the statute or the legislative history to indicate that the ICPC was ever intended to address any individual other than an out-of-state foster or adoptive parent. The language explicitly limits its applicability to out-of-state placements in foster care or as a preliminary to a possible adoption … . The limitation reflects the ICPC’s purpose which was to provide “a uniform legislative framework for the placement of children across state lines in foster and/or adoptive homes” … . Matter of Emmanuel B. (Lynette J.), 2019 NY Slip Op 05640, First Dept 7-18-19

 

You might also like
REJECTING THE 2ND DEPARTMENT’S CRITICISM OF THE 1ST DEPARTMENT’S THIRD-PARTY-ASSAULT JURISPRUDENCE, THE 1ST DEPARTMENT HELD THE BROKEN DOOR THROUGH WHICH THE ASSAILANTS GAINED ACCESS TO THE BUILDING WHERE PLAINTIFF’S DECEDENT WAS SHOT AND KILLED WAS NOT A PROXIMATE CAUSE OF THE SHOOTING BECAUSE THE ASSAILANTS WOULD HAVE FOUND A WAY TO ENTER THE BUILDING EVEN IF THE DOOR LOCK WERE WORKING (FIRST DEPT).
PLAINTIFF FELL FROM A SCAFFOLD AFTER TOUCHING A LIVE ELECTRIC WIRE; FAILURE TO TURN OFF THE ELECTRICITY MAY BE COMPARATIVE NEGLIGENCE WHICH DOES NOT DEFEAT A LABOR LAW 240 (1) CAUSE OF ACTION; PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FIRST DEPT).
IN THIS DESIGN DEFECT PRODUCTS LIABILITY CASE, THE LOSS OF THE SPECIFIC PRODUCT WHICH CAUSED THE INJURY DID NOT PREVENT DEFENDANT-MANUFACTURER FROM PRESENTING A DEFENSE; THE COMPLAINT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED ON SPOLIATION GROUNDS (FIRST DEPT).
ALTHOUGH THE MOLINEUX EVIDENCE OF TWO PRIOR BURGLARIES WAS RELEVANT TO THE DEFENDANT’S INTENT TO BURGLARIZE THE BUILDING IN WHICH HE WAS FOUND BY THE POLICE, THE EXTENSIVE, DETAILED EVIDENCE OF THE PRIOR BURGLARIES RENDERED THE EVIDENCE TOO PREJUDICIAL, CONVICTION REVERSED (FIRST DEPT).
THE EVIDENCE DEFENDANT SHARED THE CO-DEFENDANT’S INTENT TO STAB THE VICTIM WAS LEGALLY INSUFFICIENT (FIRST DEPT).
MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN LIEU OF COMPLAINT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED BECAUSE REFERENCE TO EXTRINSIC EVIDENCE WAS REQUIRED; STATUTE OF FRAUDS DID NOT REQUIRE DISMISSAL BECAUSE IT WAS ALLEGED THERE WAS NEW CONSIDERATION FOR THE PROMISE TO PAY THE DEBT OF ANOTHER (FIRST DEPT).
PLAINTIFF DEMONSTRATED THE SCAFFOLD FROM WHICH HE FELL DID NOT HAVE GUARDRAILS; HIS MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON THE LABOR LAW 240(1) CAUSE OF ACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FIRST DEPT).
Defense Counsel, Not Defendant, Has the Ultimate Authority to Determine Whether Defendant Should Testify Before the Grand Jury

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

PLAINTIFF’S TESTIMONY ABOUT HOW THE TRAFFIC ACCIDENT HAPPENED FOUND INCREDIBLE... SUPREME COURT SHOULD HAVE DETERMINED WHETHER THE MATTER WAS ARBITRABLE INSTEAD...