DOCSLIB.ORG

A Practical Guide to the ICPC (Interstate Compact on the Placement of Children)

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
A Practical Guide to the ICPC (Interstate Compact on the Placement of Children) A PRACTICAL GUIDE TO THE ICPC1 IN GEORGIA PREPARED FOR THE GEORGIA JUVENILE COURT JUDGES (ICJE) FALL, 2004 SEMINAR BY: RANDALL M. KESSLER 2 CEN TENNIAL TOWER 101 MARIETTA STREET, SUITE 3500 ATLANTA, GEORGIA 30303 404.688.8810 WWW.KESSLERSCHWARZ.COM 1Interstate Compact on the Placement of Children 2The presenter, Randall M. Kessler is the founder of Kessler & Schwarz, P.C., a domestic relations law firm in Atlanta, Georgia. Mr. Kessler is the National Chairperson for the Family Courts Committee of the Family Law Section of the American Bar Association and is the former chair of the Family Law Section of the Atlanta Bar Association. Joseph Sullivan, a summer associate at Kessler & Schwarz, P.C., researched and composed the original materials. Karlise Grier, founding partner of the Law Offices of Karlise Grier in Atlanta, Georgia, assisted in the research and composition of these materials. A PRACTICAL GUIDE TO THE INTERSTATE COMPACT on the PLACEMENT of CHILDREN (ICPC) IN GEORGIA The Interstate Compact on the Placement of Children (ICPC or “the Compact”), enacted in 1960 and embodied in the State of Georgia at O.C.G.A. §§ 39-4-1 through 39-4-10, was designed to ensure protection and services to children3 who are placed across state lines for foster care or adoption. The purpose of the Compact is to protect the jurisdictional, administrative, and human rights obligations of all parties involved in an interstate placement.4 By enacting the Compact, the 50 states of the U.S. recognized that children placed outside state borders need the same protections and services that would be provided if they remained in state. In addition, the Compact sought to ensure children a return to their original jurisdictions should placements prove not to be in their best interests or should the need for out-of-state services cease. The Compact is under the umbrella of the American Public Human Services Association (APHSA). The ICPC Secretariat, through APHSA, has issued 10 regulations and forms (discussed later) to 3According to the ICPC, a “child” is defined as “a person, who by reason of minority, is legally subject to parental guardianship or similar control.” Guide to the Interstate Compact on the Placement of Children; (visited 10/4/04); http://icpc.aphsa.org/documents/Guidebook_2002.pdf. 4O.C.G.A. § 34-4-4, Art. I, describes the purpose of the Compact as ensuring that “(a) each child requiring placement shall receive the maximum opportunity to be placed in a suitable environment and with persons or institutions having appropriate qualifications and facilities to provide a necessary and desirable degree and type of care; (b) the appropriate authorities in a state where a child is to be placed may have full opportunity to ascertain the circumstances of the proposed placement, thereby promoting full compliance with applicable requirements for the protection of the child; (c) the proper authorities of the state from which the placement is made may obtain the most complete information on the basis of which to evaluate a projected placement before it is made; (d) appropriate jurisdictional arrangements for the care of children will be promoted.” 2 implement the law.5 I. A BRIEF HISTORY The need for a compact to regulate the interstate movement of children was recognized in the 1950s. At that time, a group of east coast social service administrators joined informally to study the problems of children moved out of state for foster care or adoption. Among the problems they identified was the failure of importation and exportation statutes enacted by individual states to provide protection for children. The administrators recognized that a state’s jurisdiction ends at its borders and that a state can only compel an out-of-state agency or individual to discharge its obligations toward a child through a compact. The administrators were also concerned that a state to which a child was sent did not have to provide supportive services even though it might agree to do so on a courtesy basis. In response to these and other problems, the Compact was drafted, and in 1960 New York was the first state to enact it.6 II. WHAT THE COMPACT DOES The Compact contains 10 articles, enumerated in the State of Georgia at O.C.G.A. § 39- 4-4. These articles define the types of placements and persons subject to the law, the procedures to be followed in making an interstate placement, and the specific protections, services, and requirements brought by the enactment of the law. The Compact applies to four types of situations in which children may be sent to other states: (1) placement preliminary to an adoption; (2) placements into foster care, including foster 5Guide to the Interstate Compact on the Placement of Children; (visited 7/14/04); http://icpc.aphsa.org/documents/Guidebook_2002.pdf. 6See Supra n. 5. 3 homes, group homes, residential treatment facilities and institutions; (3) placements with parents and relatives when a parent or relative is not making the placement; and (4) placements of adjudicated delinquents in institutions in other states. The Compact mandates that “sending agencies” must use the Compact when they “send, bring, or cause a child to be brought or sent” to another party state. O.C.G.A. § 39-4-4, Art. III(a). The Compact defines a “sending agency” as “a party state, or officer, or employee thereof; a subdivision of a party state, or officer thereof; a court of a party state; a person, corporation, association, charitable agency or other entity which sends, brings or causes to be sent or brought any child to another party state.” O.C.G.A. § 39-4-4, Art, II(b). However, not all placements of children are subject to the provisions in the Compact. In addition, not all persons who place children are subject to the Compact. The Compact does not include placements made in medical and mental health facilities or in boarding schools. The Compact also does not include placements made in “any institution primarily educational in character.” O.C.G.A. § 39-4-4, Art. II(d). The placement of a child into a receiving state made by a parent, stepparent, grandparent, adult brother or sister, adult uncle or aunt, or the child’s guardian is not covered by the Compact if that person leaves the child with any such relative or non-agency guardian in the receiving state.7 Consequently, Art. VIII(a) of the Compact excludes from coverage placements made from certain individuals to certain enumerated individuals. The wording of the provision, however, is specific in that exclusion from the Compact only occurs when both the placer and the placement recipient belong to the enumerated classes of individuals. For instance, a placement made by a parent to an “adult uncle or aunt” of the child or from one of 7O.C.G.A. § 39-4-4, Art. VIII(a). 4 the other enumerated individuals to a parent is exempt from the compact. The Compact seeks to manage out of state placements in order to provide numerous safeguards to the children of the U.S., as well as to protect any state agency or party involved in the transfer. The Compact provides the sending agency the opportunity to obtain home studies and an evaluation of the proposed placement. The prospective receiving state can ensure that the placement is not “contrary to the interests of the child” and that its applicable law and policies have been followed before it approves the placement. In addition, the Compact guarantees the child legal and financial protection by fixing these responsibilities with the sending agency or individual. Finally, the Compact provides any sending agency the opportunity to obtain supervision and regular reports on the child’s adjustment and progress in the placement. These types of safeguards are routinely available when the child, person, or responsible agency and the placement are all in a single state or jurisdiction. However, when the placement involves two states or jurisdictions, these types of safeguards are only available through the Compact.8 III. PROCEDURES FOR MAKING COMPACT PLACEMENTS When the State of Georgia enacted the Compact, it became law, just as any other legislation passed by the State Legislature. Under the terms of the law, the States agree to follow uniform procedures when they make or accept interstate placements of children. Since the Compact is also a contract among the States, as well as a statute in each of them, it must be interpreted and implemented uniformly by all of the States.9 Georgia has appointed James Graves and John Hutto as Compact Administrators who are 8See Supra n. 5. 9Id. 5 to oversee or perform the day-to-day tasks associated with the administration of the Compact. The Georgia Administrators may be reached at (404) 657-3564 and at: The Division of Family and Child Services, Georgia Department of Human Resources, Atlanta, Georgia, 30303-3180. (See Attachment C for all ICPC Contact Personnel). In every state, the Compact office and personnel are located in an office that is part of the department of public welfare or the state’s equivalent agency. In Georgia, the appropriate location is the Department of Human Resources. The Compact Administrator is designated to serve as the central clearing point for all referrals for interstate placements. The Administrator and his/her deputies are authorized to conduct the necessary investigation of the proposed placement and to determine whether or not the placement is contrary to the child’s interests. After the placement is approved and the child is moved into the state, the Compact Administrator is responsible for overseeing the placement as long as it continues.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • FACT SHEET Interstate Compact on Educational Opportunity for Military Children
    Florida House of Representatives EDUCATION Interstate Compact on FACT Educational Opportunity for SHEET Military Children 2010-11 What is the Interstate Compact on Educational Opportunity for Military Children? In 2008, the Legislature enacted the Interstate Compact on Educational Opportunity for Military Children.1 The compact is based on model legislation developed by the Council of State Governments and the United States Department of Defense (DOD). The compact enables member states to uniformly address various educational transition issues faced by children of active-duty military families.2 The compact establishes state and national level governing bodies to administer the compact among member states.3 States may join the compact by enacting a law adopting the compact.4 Thirty-two states, including Florida, are members of the compact.5 1 Chapter 2008-225, L.O.F.; ss. 1000.36, 1000.37, 1000.38, and 1000.39, F.S. An interstate compact is a mutual agreement between two or more states to cooperate in the regulation of a particular public policy matter shared by each state. States currently utilize compacts to regulate environmental resource management, multi-state taxation, transportation, corrections, crime control, and juvenile justice issues. Though legislatively enacted, compacts operate like a contract. Member states are bound to observe the terms of the agreement. Compact provisions take precedence over conflicting or inconsistent member state laws. Council of State Governments, Interstate Compact on Educational Opportunity for Military Children: Legislative Resource Kit, part 1 at 2-3 (Jan. 2008), available at http://www.csg.org/knowledgecenter/docs/ncic/RESOURCEKIT-January2008final.pdf [hereinafter Legislative Resource Kit].
    [Show full text]
  • Sep Tember 8-16, 2020 Docket Book
    Interstate Commission for Adult Offender Supervision Annual Business Meeting SEPTEMBER 8-16, 2020 DOCKET BOOK 2020 VIRTUAL ANNUAL BUSINESS MEETING DOCKET BOOK I nterstat e Commission for Adult Off ender Supe rvision September 8-16, 2020 • Agenda • Minutes 2019 • Minutes 2020 • Region agendas • Executive Committee agenda • Thriving in the Trenches • Empowerment and Role of DCAs • Committee and Region reports • Budget & State dues assessment • FY22 Dues reduction proposal • ICOTS Enhancements • Data collection • Statute • Bylaws • Rules • Robert’s Rules of Order 2020 Annual Business Meeting Docket Book • Page 1 2020 VIRTUAL ANNUAL BUSINESS MEETING AGENDA INTERSTATE COMMISSION FOR ADULT OFFENDER SUPERVISION SEPTEMBER 8 - 16, 2020 Tuesday, September 8 2:00 pm – 3:30 pm ET East and West Region Meetings Thursday, September 10 2:00 pm – 3:30 pm ET South and Midwest Region Meetings Monday, September 14 11:00 am – 1:00 pm ET Executive Committee Meeting 2:00 pm – 3:30 pm ET Thriving in the Trenches • Kirsten Lewis, President of KSL Research, Training, & Consultation, LLC Tuesday, September 15 2:00 pm – 4:00 pm ET Empowerment and Role of DCAs • Moderator: Joselyn Lopez (WI), Commissioner • Presenters: Natalie Latulippe (CT), DCA; Matthew Billinger (KS), DCA; Suzanne Brooks (OH), DCA; & Tracy Hudrlik (MN), DCA. 2020 Annual Business Meeting Docket Book • Page 2 Wednesday, September 16 2:00 pm – 4:00 pm ET General Session Call to Order • Roll Call Opening Remarks • Jeremiah Stromberg (OR), Commission Chair Approval of Agenda Approval of Minutes • October
    [Show full text]
  • GDC Inmate Handbook
    NOTICE This handbook does not replace the official Rules and Regulations of the Georgia Department of Corrections. Information from the Rules and Regulations of the Department has been included to help you understand what is required of you, but this information is to be used in conjunction with the Rules and Regulations. In any case, where there is a conflict between information in the Rules and Regulations and information in this handbook, the Rules and Regulations are to be followed. 1 INTRODUCTION Treat your time in a Correctional Facility as an opportunity to correct mistakes, to learn how to return to society as a contributing member. While you are here, treat others as you would like to be treated, observe rules and regulations, and participate actively in available programs, and you will be closer to that goal. If you are entering a State Prison for the first time you will be interested in what is expected of you, as well as what will be provided to you, by the Georgia Department of Corrections. This booklet will answer some of your questions. It outlines the rules and regulations of the Department, as well as the disciplinary and grievance procedures that will apply to you during your incarceration. You will also learn about the programs offered through your institution. There are rules and regulations, which you will be expected to observe while in prison as you prepare for your release from prison. You will be treated humanely and you will be allowed to earn opportunities to change the life habits that helped put you in prison.
    [Show full text]
  • Interstate Compact Office Directory
    Interstate Commission for Adult Offender Supervision 3070 Lake Crest Circle, Suite 400-264, Lexington, KY 40513 ALABAMA PAROLE & PROBATION COMMISSIONER / COMPACT ADMINISTRATOR Tom Langer Direct Phone: 334-353-4507 Commissioner / Compact Administrator Office Phone: Alabama Bureau of Pardons and Paroles Fax: (334)396-8733 (ABPP) Personal Email: [email protected] Interstate Compact Office Email: [email protected] 100 Capitol Commerce Boulevard Montgomery, AL 36117 DCA Lee Ishman Direct Phone: 334-353-4487 DCA Office Phone: Alabama Bureau of Pardons and Paroles Fax: (334)396-8733 (ABPP) Personal Email: [email protected] Interstate Compact Office Email: [email protected] 100 Capitol Commerce Boulevard, 2nd Fl Montgomery, AL 36117 ICOTS ADMINISTRATOR AL - ICOTS Administrator Direct Phone: ICOTS Administrator Office Phone: 334-353-4491 Alabama Bureau of Pardons and Paroles Fax: Interstate Compact Personal Email: [email protected] 100 Capitol Commerce Boulevard, 2nd Fl Office Email: [email protected] Montgomery, AL 36117 ICOTS ADMINISTRATOR Beverly Gilder Direct Phone: 334-353-4491 ICOTS Administrator Office Phone: Alabama Bureau of Pardons and Paroles Fax: (334)396-8733 (ABPP) Personal Email: [email protected] Interstate Compact Office Email: [email protected] 100 Capitol Commerce Boulevard – 2nd Floor Montgomery, AL 36117 INTERSTATE COMPACT ASA III Stacey Whitlow Direct Phone: 334-353-4492 Interstate Compact ASA III Office Phone: Alabama Bureau of Pardons and Paroles Fax: (334)396-8733 (ABPP) Personal Email: [email protected] Interstate Compact Office Email: [email protected] 100 Capitol Commerce Boulevard – 2nd Floor Montgomery, AL 36117 OTHER VICTIMS' REPRESENTATIVE Janette Grantham Direct Phone: 334-262-7197 Victims' Representative Office Phone: Fax: Personal Email: [email protected] 422 South Court St.
    [Show full text]
  • Innovation and Success in Homelessness Prevention: What's
    Innovation and Success in Homelessness Prevention: What’s Happening Now and What’s Next Tuesday, March 30, 2021 SPEAKER BIOS Sharon McDonald, Senior Fellow for Families and Children, National Alliance to End Homelessness [email protected] Sharon McDonald is a Senior Fellow for Families and Children at the National Alliance to End Homelessness. Before joining the Alliance in 2001, Sharon was the 1999/2000 National Association of Social Workers/Council on Education Congressional Fellow. She completed the Fellowship in Senator Paul Wellston's office where she focused on welfare and housing issues. Sharon has supervisory and direct practice experience working in a drop-in community service center that helped people experiencing homelessness get connected to critical survival and support services. Sharon holds an MSW and Ph.D. in Social Work and Social Policy from Virginia Commonwealth University. Michael Aiello Program Manager II, State of Connecticut Judicial Branch Court Support Services Division [email protected] Michael worked seven years at a non-profit in varying capacities, three years of which were as the Program Director of the Transitional Housing program for men. Michael has worked for twenty-three years with the Judicial Branch, managing several different programs including adult residential programs, electronic monitoring, sex offender treatment, DNA collection, Jail Re-Interview. He has played an instrumental role in the development of the Housing Survey and serves on the Reaching Home Prevention workgroup. Michael holds a B.S. for Fairfield University and has an MPA from the University of New Haven. Tasha Hunt, Deputy Director of Juvenile Probation Services, State of Connecticut Judicial Branch Court Support Services Division Ms.
    [Show full text]
  • 2003 Annual Report
    ANNUAL REPORT In June 2002, thirty five states approved legislation Table of Contents for adoption of a new compact for the supervision of adult offenders. The initial meeting of the state Commissioners took place in Scottsdale, Arizona on November 18-20, 2003. Bylaws and Transition Rules Letter from the were adopted, Committees established, a budget Executive Director ...2 and fee structure approved, and officers elected. The Commissioners had one year to draft rules and Member States ........2 establish the function of each committee. A tremendous challenge lay before us. General Counsel ......3 Before the 2nd annual meeting, 45 states adopted the new compact and each participated in defining the duties and responsibilities of estab- Victims’ Advocate ....3 lished committees. The Rules Committee worked tirelessly to develop rules for the Compact prior to the 2nd annual meeting. The committees Regions ..................4 for Information Technology, Training Education and Public Relations, Compliance, and Finance also completed their work expeditiously. Committees .............6 I realize there is a great deal of work yet to be done. With three states Budget ...................9 and some territories still not signatories to the Compact. Further, training must be completed on the new rules, compliance protocols must Dues Assessment .. 11 establish how the rules will be enforced, and the development of an offender tracking system. There is one issue that I feel has been most important in the infancy of the Compact, and that is communication. While we may not all agree on every issue, it is apparent to me after two national meetings, and serving as your Chair, that each Commissioner is truly committed to making the Compact work.
    [Show full text]
  • INTERSTATE COMPACT on ADULT OFFENDER SUPERVISION Overseeing the Movement of Convicted Offenders to and from Minnesota
    INTERSTATE COMPACT ON ADULT OFFENDER SUPERVISION Overseeing the movement of convicted offenders to and from Minnesota We live in a world where life’s activities necessarily take us across state borders—people work or attend school in a neighboring state; people routinely travel to other states for recreation; and people move to other states for family or employment reasons. Unsurprisingly, this mobility has an impact on our criminal justice system. Some individuals commit crimes in neighboring states, and other individuals, once convicted, wish to move to different states. What happens when an offender is convicted in one state, but actually lives in another state? What happens when an offender wants to move to another state? When can supervision of offenders on probation or parole be transferred to another state, and who is responsible for that supervision? The answer to these questions can be found in the Interstate Compact on Adult Offender Supervision. Some history A “compact” is a contractual agreement between states, enacted through legislative means, with the purpose of resolving a dispute, studying a problem, or creating an ongoing administrative mechanism for managing an interstate affair. Interstate compacts are authorized under the U.S. Constitution. In 1937, the Interstate Compact for the Supervision of Probationers and Parolees was formed as a result of the states’ need to control the movement of offenders. The compact was given sole authority for regulating the transfer of adult parole and probation supervision across state boundaries. In 2002, after a comprehensive review and assessment process, a new Interstate Compact was enacted. Today, all 50 states and the territories of Washington, D.C., Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands are members of the compact.
    [Show full text]
  • New Jersey, Et Al
    No. 20-772 In the Supreme Court of the United States WATERFRONT COMM’N OF NEW YORK HARBOR, PETITIONER, v. PHIL MURPHY, GOVERNOR OF NEW JERSEY, ET AL. RESPONDENT. ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT RESPONDENTS’ JOINT BRIEF IN OPPOSITION TO CERTIORARI GURBIR S. GREWAL LEON J. SOKOL* Attorney General STEVEN SIEGEL State of New Jersey CULLEN AND DYKMAN LLP JEREMY M. FEIGENBAUM* 433 Hackensack Avenue State Solicitor Hackensack, NJ 07601 JEAN P. REILLY [email protected] Assistant Attorney General * Counsel of Record JAMIE M. ZUG KRISTINA L. MILES Counsel for Respondents Deputy Attorneys General New Jersey Senate, Senate 25 Market Street President Stephen M. Trenton, NJ 08625 Sweeney, New Jersey Gen- (609) 292-4925 eral Assembly and Assem- [email protected] bly Speaker Craig J. * Counsel of Record Coughlin Counsel for Respondent Governor Murphy TABLE OF CONTENTS Page(s) INTRODUCTION ........................................................ 1 STATEMENT OF THE CASE .................................... 2 REASONS FOR DENYING THE PETITION ............ 8 I. The Alleged Circuit Split Is Illusory. ............... 8 II. This Case Does Not Otherwise Warrant ......Certiorari.........................................................14 A. Petitioner Overstates The Consequences Of The Decision Below....................................................14 B. The Decision Below Is Correct............20 III. This Case Is A Poor Vehicle In Which To Review The Question Presented .................... 24 CONCLUSION .......................................................... 26 i ii TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Page(s) Cases Alabama v. North Carolina, 560 U.S. 330 (2010) .............................................. 16 In re Ayers, 123 U.S. 443 (1887) ........................................ 20, 23 Blatchford v. Native Village of Noatak & Circle Village, 501 U.S. 775 (1991) ........................................ 15, 16 College Savings Bank v.
    [Show full text]
  • The Interstate Compact in Transition: from Cooperative State Action to Congressionally Coerced Agreements
    St. John's Law Review Volume 60 Number 1 Volume 60, Fall 1985, Number 1 Article 1 The Interstate Compact in Transition: From Cooperative State Action to Congressionally Coerced Agreements Kevin J. Heron Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.law.stjohns.edu/lawreview This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Journals at St. John's Law Scholarship Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in St. John's Law Review by an authorized editor of St. John's Law Scholarship Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. ST. JOHN'S LAW REVIEW VOLUME 60 FALL 1985 NUMBER 1 THE INTERSTATE COMPACT IN TRANSITION: FROM COOPERATIVE STATE ACTION TO CONGRESSIONALLY COERCED AGREEMENTS BY KEVIN J. HERON* INTRODUCTION The Constitution of the United States furnishes only two ex- plicit mechanisms for resolving or controlling controversies and concerns among the several states. The first, and least desirable of the two, is embodied in article III, which extends the original juris- diction of the Supreme Court to controversies between two or more states.' The second, a more peaceful and preferred mode, is em- braced in what is commonly known as the Compact Clause, which obliquely acknowledges the inherent sovereign power of the states to enter into compacts or agreements with one another subject only to the consent of Congress.2 This latter method of interstate cooperation and coordination is the subject of the present Article. As a matter of historical record, the interstate compact device was initially utilized by the pioneers of the original thirteen colo- nies prior to the adoption of the Constitution.3 Perhaps as a result * J.D., 1983, The National Law Center, George Washington University; B.S.
    [Show full text]
  • Interstate Compact in Louisiana
    PART III. INTERSTATE COMPACT ON EDUCATIONAL OPPORTUNITY FOR MILITARY CHILDREN §1915. Ratification; text of compact The action of the governor of this state in entering into a compact on behalf of the State of Louisiana with the states joining therein for cooperative efforts for ensuring educational opportunity and access for children of military families is hereby authorized and ratified, which compact is substantially as follows: INTERSTATE COMPACT ON EDUCATIONAL OPPORTUNITY FOR MILITARY CHILDREN ARTICLE I PURPOSE It is the purpose of this compact to remove barriers to educational success imposed on children of military families because of frequent moves and deployment of their parents by: A. Facilitating the timely enrollment of children of military families and ensuring that they are not placed at a disadvantage due to difficulty in the transfer of education records from the previous school district(s) or variations in entrance/age requirements. B. Facilitating the student placement process through which children of military families are not disadvantaged by variations in attendance requirements, scheduling, sequencing, grading, course content or assessment. C. Facilitating the qualification and eligibility for enrollment, educational programs, and participation in extracurricular academic, athletic, and social activities. D. Facilitating the on-time graduation of children of military families. E. Providing for the promulgation and enforcement of administrative rules implementing the provisions of this compact. F. Providing for the uniform collection and sharing of information between and among member states, schools and military families under this compact. G. Promoting coordination between this compact and other compacts affecting military children. H. Promoting flexibility and cooperation between the educational system, parents and the student in order to achieve educational success for the student.
    [Show full text]
  • The Interstate Compact on Educational Opportunity for Military Children
    The Interstate Compact on Educational Opportunity for Military Children Alaska has joined an interstate compact designed to remove educational barriers that military families may face when they are deployed to a new state. The Legislature passed, and then-Gov. Palin signed, House Bill 137 in 2009. It became effective immediately. Under the law, Alaska joined the Interstate Compact on Educational Opportunity for Military Children. This memo summarizes in plain language the law’s requirements as they apply to school districts. It is intended as an introduction to the compact. The compact applies to public K-12 students. A copy of the complete law, which contains the compact, is at http://www.legis.state.ak.us/PDF/26/Bills/HB0137Z.PDF. If you have questions, call Marcy Herman at 907-465-2803. Who is served by the compact? 1. The families of active-duty members of uniformed services. This includes the Army, Navy, Air Force, Marine Corps, Coast Guard, as well as the Commissioned Corps of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and the Public Health Services. 2. Families of members of the National Guard and Reserve on active duty. 3. The compact’s protections apply for a period of one year to families of members or veterans of the uniformed services who are medically discharged, die on active duty or as result of injuries suffered on active duty, or are retired. Educational records and enrollment If official records aren’t immediately available, the students’ old school must provide the military family with a copy of unofficial records to take to the students’ new school.
    [Show full text]
  • A Primer on the Interstate Allocation of Water in Idaho and Washington
    A Primer on the Interstate Allocation of Water in Idaho and Washington Idaho Washington Aquifer Collaborative (IWAC) Liberty Lake, Idaho September 8, 2015 ____________________ Christopher H. Meyer, Esq. GIVENS PURSLEY LLP 601 West Bannock Street Boise, ID 83702 208-388-1236 [email protected] www.givenspursley.com INTERSTATE ALLOCATION OF WATER © 2015 GIVENS PURSLEY LLP Page 1 2560779_1 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. THE INTERSTATE ALLOCATION OF WATER ............................................................... 3 A. Overview ................................................................................................................ 3 B. The law of interstate allocation .............................................................................. 5 (1) Equitable apportionment ........................................................................... 5 (2) Compacts................................................................................................... 9 (3) Congressional apportionment (aka congressional allocation) ............................................................................................... 10 (4) Informal agreements ............................................................................... 11 (5) Unilateral restrictions on export: the dormant commerce clause ..................................................................................... 12 (6) Transfer of water rights across state lines ............................................... 12 (7) Private curtailment of water rights in other states
    [Show full text]