Dedication

Reviving the Interstate Compact on the Placement of Children By Judge Len Edwards

Section I.       Introduction

Section II.      Regulation No. 7 with Narrative

Section III.     Joint Committee's Recommendations

    A.          Summary 
    B.          For Improving the Effectiveness of the Interstate
                 Compact on the Placement of Children (ICPC) 
    C.          Joint Committee Members 

Section IV.     Resolution from NCSHSA & NAPCWA

Section V.      Resolution from NCJFCJ 

Bob Praksti began working for the National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges (NCJFCJ) in 1980 where he gained national recognition as an advocate and leader for improving services to children and families. In 1992 the National Court-Appointed Special Advocate Association awarded Bob their President's Award and in 1995 the National Association of Foster Care Reviewers presented him with an award for his efforts to assist children in foster care. 

Bob Praksti's advocacy for children and families was enhanced not only by his most recent work in the position of Project Director of the Permanency Planning for Children Project Advisory Committee of NCJFCJ, but also by his appointment in 1993 as a member of the Executive Committee of the National Association of Public Child Welfare Administrators (NAPCWA) of the American Public Welfare Association (APWA). 

It was from this unique perspective of working with these two highly respected national organizations as well as his education and training as both a social worker and an attorney, that he brought so much to the deliberations of the Joint Committee, and contributed in no small way to the finalization of this landmark report on the ways to improve the day-to-day operations of the Interstate Compact on the Placement of Children (ICPC).

In spite of their frustration, several judges on the Permanency Planning Committee joined with the Association of Administrators of the Interstate Compact on the Placement of Children (AAICPC) and the National Association of Public Child Welfare Administrators (NAPCWA) to modify the ICPC. After over a year of work, the result is Regulation 7 a copy of which is attached. Regulation 7 speeds up the ICPC process. Using a number of techniques, it enables the ICPC to accomplish its purposes in a timely fashion.

Regulation 7 reduces the time it takes to complete the ICPC process in two fundamental ways. First, once a case has been designated a priority placement, Regulation 7 mandates that all decision makers in each state complete their work in an expedited fashion. Second, if the process is still not working fast enough, Regulation 7 encourages judges to talk with one another on thetelephone to speed up the process.

Pursuant to paragraph #5 of Regulation 7, a child qualifies for the priority placement procedure if the proposed placement would be with a designated relative and (1) the child is under two years of age or (2) the child is in emergency shelter or (3) the court finds that that the child has spent a substantial amount of time in the home of the proposed placement. Moreover, the court must find that the paperwork for the placement has been completed and been in the receiving state.

Judge to judge communication has been the hallmark of the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction Act (UCCJA). Most judges who have handled domestic relations or juvenile cases have had the opportunity to communicate with judges in other jurisdictions. In the majority of cases, this communication results in a speedy resolution of both legal and procedural problems. This judge to judge technique is a cornerstone of Regulation 7. Over the past months since the effective date of Regulation 7, a number of judges have been utilizing the new procedures. Most find that it works well. Somehow business gets done after judges in different jurisdictions talk with one another. Of course, the judge-to-judge process can be expedited if you are a member of the National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges. Their membership directory provides the names, addresses and telephone numbers of a great number of juvenile and family court judges around the country.

This landmark Final Report of the Joint Committee on ICPC Improvement is significant for several important reasons: 

1. Words and phrases used in this regulation shall have the same meanings as those ascribed to them in the Interstate Compact on the Placement of Children (ICPC). A word or phrase not appearing in ICPC shall have the meaning ascribed to it by special definition in this regulation or, where not so defined, the meaning properly ascribed to it in common usage. 

2. Whenever a court, upon request, or on its own motion, or where court approval is required, determines that a proposed priority placement of a child from one state into another state is necessary, the court shall make and sign an order embodying that finding.
The court shall send its order to the Sending Agency within two (2) business days. The order shall include the name, address, telephone number, and if available, the FAX number, of the judge and the court. The court shall have the sending agency transmit,
within three (3) business days, the signed court order, a completed Form 100A ("Request for Placement") and supporting documentation pursuant to ICPC Article III, to the sending state Compact Administrator. Within a time not to exceed two (2) business days after receipt of the ICPC priority placement request, the sending state Compact Administrator shall transmit the priority request and its accompanying documentation to the receiving state Compact Administrator together with a notice that the request for placement is entitled to priority processing. 

3. The court order, ICPC-100A, and supporting documentation referred to in Paragraph Two (2) hereof shall be transmitted to the receiving state Compact Administrator by overnight mail together with a cover notice calling attention to the priority status of the
request for placement. The receiving state Compact Administrator shall make his or her determination pursuant to Article III (d) of ICPC as soon as practicable but no later then twenty (20) business days from the date the overnight mailing was received and
forthwith shall send the completed 100-A by FAX to the sending state Compact Administrator. 

4. (a) If the receiving state Compact Administrator fails to complete action as the receiving state prescribed in Paragraph Three (3) hereof within the time period allowed, the receiving state shall be deemed to be out of compliance with ICPC. If there appears to be a lack of compliance, the court, which made the priority order, may so inform an appropriate court in the receiving state, provide that court with copies of relevant documentation in the case, and request assistance. Within its jurisdiction and authority, the requested court may render such assistance, including the making of appropriate orders, for the purpose of obtaining compliance with thisRegulation and ICPC. 

(b) The foregoing shall not apply if:

(c) Where the sending state court is not itself the sending agency, it is the responsibility of the sending agency to keep the court, which issued the priority order, informed of the status of the priority request. 

5. A court order finding entitlement to a priority placement shall not be valid unless it contains an express finding that one or more of the following circumstances applies to the particular case and sets forth the facts on which the court bases its finding: 

    (a) the proposed placement recipient is a relative belonging to a class of persons who, under Article VIII(a) of ICPC could receive a child from another person belonging to such a class, without complying with ICPC and; (1) the child is under two (2) years of age; or (2) the child is in an emergency shelter; or (3) the court finds that the child has spent a substantial amount of time in the home of the proposed placement recipient. 

8. Unless otherwise required or allowed by this regulation, all transmittals of documents or other written materials shall be by overnight express mail carrier service. 

Effective October 1, 1996, ICPC Regulation No. 7 establishes ICPC procedures1 for the out-of-state priority placement of children.  ICPC Regulation No. 7 sets forth limited circumstances under which this procedure may be used. 

1. The court, upon request, or on its own motion, or where court approval is required, determines that a proposed priority placement of a child from one state to another state is necessary. 

    The court order finding entitlement to a priority placement shall not be valid unless it contains an express finding that one or  more of the following circumstances applies to a particular case and sets the facts on which the court bases its findings: 

        (a) the proposed placement recipient is a relative belonging to a class of persons who under Article VIII (a)2 of ICPC could receive a child from another person belonging to such a class without complying with ICPC, and (1) the child must be under two (2) years of age; or (2) the child is in an emergency shelter, or the court finds that the child has spent a substantial amount of time in the home of the proposed placement recipient. 

        (b) the receiving state Compact Administrator has a properly completed ICPC-100A and supporting documentation for over thirty (30) business days, but the sending agency has not received a notice pursuant to Article III (d) of ICPC   determining whether the child may or may not be placed. 

The court order and finding must contain the typed name, address, telephone number, and, if available, the FAX number of the judge and the court issuing the order. Additionally, the court order must be signed by its issuing judge. 

2. The court has two (2) business days to send the signed court order to the sending agency. The sending agency shall have three (3) business days to send a priority placement request package containing the court order and documentation required under an ICPCrequest, including the ICPC-101 Form (Priority Home Study Request), to the sending state ICPC Administrator by overnight express mail carrier service. 

3. The sending state ICPC office shall have two (2) business days to validate the priority placement request package and forward same, by overnight express mail, to the receiving state ICPC office. 

4. The receiving state ICPC Administrator shall have twenty (20) business days from the date of receipt of the priority placement request package to obtain sufficient information from his local receiving agency to make a determination as to whether the requested
priority placement may or may not be made. The completed ICPC-100A Form (Request for Placement) shall be faxed to the sending state ICPC administrator, who will then fax the copy of the completed ICPC-100A to the sending agency. The latter is obliged to notify the court in the sending state. 

5. ICPC Regulation No. 7 also provides for certain contingencies, such as noncompliance by the receiving state Compact Administrator, receipt of substantially insufficient documentation from the sending court and/or the sending local agency, procedures for obtaining additional documentation and/or information, and mutually agreed upon modifications to the time-period deadlines. 

6. If the receiving state fails to complete action within the prescribed time-period, the receiving state shall be deemed out-of-compliance with the ICPC. 

7. If there appears to be a lack of compliance, the court that made the priority order may so inform an appropriate court in the receiving state and provide the court with copies of relevant documentation of the case, including the making of appropriate orders, for the purpose of obtaining compliance with ICPC and Regulation No. 7 as adopted on April 28, 1996. 

This compact shall not apply to: 

Dissatisfaction exists with the delays experienced in placing dependent children through the ICPC with parents, relatives, or other resources. This general dissatisfaction is expressed by judges, attorneys, child welfare advocates, state and local agency
administrators and social workers, including ICPC staff and the families affected. The greatest concern is for the children. These delays deny them the opportunity to achieve timely stability and permanency during a period when they are traumatized by the
movement and experiences that have brought them into the child welfare system.

All 50 states, the District of Columbia, and the U.S. Virgin Islands have independently adopted the ICPC as statutory law in their respective jurisdictions.

A joint committee with representation from the National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges (NCJFCJ), the National Association of Public Child Welfare Administrators (NAPCWA) and the Association of Administrators of the Interstate Compact on the Placement of Children (AAICPC) (see Appendix A), was established by the three national organizations listed above. The Joint Committee's mission was:

· to help children;

· to eliminate delays in the placement of children in appropriate family homes across state lines; and

· to simplify the ICPC process while making the process user friendly.

To implement some of the recommendations contained in this report, it was necessary for the Compact Administrators of the ICPC to adopt Regulation No. 7, which the ICPC provides for under Article VII. Besides initially drafting Regulation No. 7, the Joint
Committee also drafted the 10 Recommendations described herein. 

The Joint Committee has made the following recommendations:

(1) IMPROVE INTERSTATE COMMUNICATION 

Provide for concurrent transmittal of ICPC requests to the receiving state ICPC office and to the local agency performing the home
study;

Encourage telephonic communication between the local offices of the sending and receiving states to confirm receipt of the request,
and to expedite information exchange and initiation/completion of the home study;

Adopt time standards for ICPC case processing at the:

· Sending state local agency/office;

· Sending state ICPC office;

· Receiving state ICPC office;

· Receiving state local agency/office;

Eliminate any delay at the originating court by having a court order signed immediately upon judicial determination of abuse and/or neglect;

Establish a protocol by which certain cases can be expedited through the ICPC process;

Establish criteria for a judicial determination of need for a `priority placement finding';

Establish an `expedited processing timeline' for a judicially determined priority placement finding.

(3) DEVELOP NATIONAL STANDARDS AND FORMAT FOR ICPC HOME STUDIES 

Establish a common protocol/outline for a home study to include a criminal background check and an abuse/neglect history
clearance;

Establish `streamlined home study criteria' for a noncustodial parent or for relatives when a judge has made a finding of `priority
placement' need.

(4) ADOPT NEW METHODS AT LOCAL AGENCIES/OFFICES TO HANDLE ICPC REQUEST PROCESSING 

Treat incoming ICPC requests with the same level of priority as local placement actions;

Use designated workers or units to increase competency and efficiency in performing ICPC home study requests and post-placement supervision;

Expand list of local providers/agencies eligible to perform a home study and/or postplacement supervision;

Expand methods of obtaining a home study.

(5) ENSURE APPROPRIATE COURT OVERSIGHT OF ICPC PLACEMENTS 

Establish criteria for termination of jurisdiction after approved placement with a noncustodial parent;

To ensure that all ICPC placements are at least annually reviewed according to state law.

(6) UTILIZE AVAILABLE TECHNOLOGY TO EXPEDITE THE EXCHANGE OF INFORMATION AND TO IMPROVE THE RECORDING, TRACKING, MONITORING, AND REPORTING OF ICPC CHILD PLACEMENTS 

Use facsimile transmission and overnight express mail;

Establish ICPC on the Internet to economically link state ICPC offices;

Use Internet e-mail in addition to the telephone for nonconfidential communication;

Identify local/state/national ICPC workload impact;

Continue development of an ICPC state office database program;

Urge the identification of ICPC children in state-automated child welfare information systems.

(7) UTILIZE UCCJA AS A MODEL FOR JUDGE-TO-JUDGE COMMUNICATION AND FILING OF A COURT  ORDER WHEN THERE HAS BEEN AN UNDUE DELAY IN ICPC CHILD PLACEMENTS OR WHEN A CASE HAS BEEN IDENTIFIED AS A PRIORITY PLACEMENT

(8) CONTINUE THE JOINT COMMITTEE ON ICPC IMPROVEMENT AS A FORUM FOR NATIONAL ORGANIZATIONS' REVIEW AND INPUT

(9) ESTABLISH STATE ICPC IMPROVEMENT COMMITTEES.

Contact State Court Improvement Project committees.

Respectfully submitted by a joint committee created for this purpose, said committee consisting of members from each of the following organizations, and augmented by their executive support staff:

1. National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges (NCJFCJ); 

2. National Association of Public Child Welfare Administrators (NAPCWA), an affiliate of the American Public Welfare Association (APWA);

The Joint Committee on ICPC Improvement generally agreed that the purposes for which the Interstate Compact on the Placement of Children was created in the late 1950s were, and still are, very important for the protection of children as they move across state lines into out-of-state placements. There is no question that children undergo stress and trauma when they are removed from their parents. These recommendations are therefore directed at placing the child with someone in a good and safe environment as soon as possible so that the effects of removal can be somewhat ameliorated. The Joint Committee is committed to work together toward not onlyupholding it original intentions, but to tackle its current problems and identify and solve any obstacles in the foreseeable future.

· home studies

· supervision by the receiving state

· services

· sending state's continued jurisdiction

The operation of the ICPC relies on its member states to cooperate in handling each other's requests for home studies and postplacement supervision. Any local office can be both a sending agency, in which it is seeking a home study in the other receiving state, as well as a receiving agency, in which another state sending agency is requesting a home study and postplacement supervision.

The creators of the ICPC may have felt that local offices would apply the Golden Rule to interstate requests, and that this approach would suffice. To be sure, they could not have foreseen the incredible increase in the number of cases requiring interstate placement nor the significant increase in local child welfare offices' caseloads.

The Joint Committee is aware that publicly funded staffing levels of local child welfare offices, as well as courts, have not kept pace with the growth in child protection cases. However, this alone was not a justifiable reason for the fairly common practice of placing interstate cases at the bottom of the in-basket. The following recommendations are put forth in good faith by the Joint Committee in the hope that everyone involved in the ICPC system will sense the urgency of taking immediate action to improve the ICPC system, and that new approaches to handling interstate cases will be welcomed and encouraged. As one Committee member put it, "A child is a child regardless of where he or she happens to live."

1. IMPROVE INTERSTATE COMMUNICATION The Joint Committee believes that concurrent processing may help reduce delays. However, the ICPC Administrators must be kept

The following were members of the Joint Committee on ICPC Improvement:

Samuel G. Ashdown, Jr.
Compact Administrator
Children & Family Services
Program Office (PDCFI)
FL Department of Health
and Rehabilitative Services
1317 Winewood Blvd.
Tallahassee, FL 32399-0700
(904) 487-2760

Ernestine Barbieri
Deputy Compact Administrator
California Dept. of Social Services
744 P Street, MS 19-90
Sacramento, CA 95814
(916) 445-2807
(916) 445-2898 (FAX)

Frank Barthel, JD
Secretariat, AAICPC
810 First NE
Washington, DC 20002-4267
(202) 682-0100

Mike Chapman
Deputy Compact Administrator
Arizona Dept. of Economic Security
3225 North Central Avenue
10th Floor
Phoenix, AZ 85005
(602) 235-9134, ext. 7102

The Honorable Leonard P. Edwards
Superior Court of California
Santa Clara County
191 North First Street
San Jose, CA 95113
(408) 299-3949
(408) 293-9408 (FAX)

Ramona Foley
Director
Family Preservation & Child Welfare Services
South Carolina Department of Social Services
P.O. Box 1520
Columbia, SC 29202-1520
(803) 734-5670
(803) 734-6220 (FAX)

The Honorable Martin A. Herman
Superior Court, Old Courthouse, #2
Broad & Delaware Streets
Woodbury, NJ 08096-0316
(609) 853-3257
(609) 848-9493 (FAX)

Marjorie Kelly, Deputy Director
Adult and Family Services Division
California Department of Social Services
744 P Street, M/S 17-18
Sacramento, CA 95814
(916) 657-2614

Bob Praksti, Director
Permanency Planning Project
National. Council of Juvenile
& Family Court Judges
1041 N. Virginia St.
Reno, NV 89557
(702) 784-6012

Whereas, the Joint Committee has issued 10 recommendations and a priority regulation outlining judicial authority to expedite the interstate placement of dependent children; and 

Whereas, NAPCWA has reaffirmed the need for joint support between the courts and public child welfare agencies to expedite interstate placements; and 

Whereas, the AAICPC adopted the recommendations and passed the priority regulation pursuant to Article VII of the ICPC at its 22nd Annual Meeting in April 1996 and will assist all 50 states, the District of Columbia, and the U.S. Virgin Islands to implement and promulgate these recommendations and regulation;

    (45 ILCS 15/0.01)
    Sec. 0.01.
  Short title.  This Act may be cited  as  the  Interstate Compact on Placement of Children Act. (Source: P.A. 86-1324.)

    (45 ILCS 15/1)
    Sec. 1.
   The Interstate Compact  on  the  Placement  of  Children  is hereby  enacted  into  law and entered into with all other jurisdictions legally joining therein in form substantially as follows:

    It is the purpose and policy of the party states to  cooperate  with each other in the interstate placement of children to the end 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 on which to evaluate a projected placement before it is made.

    (d)  Appropriate jurisdictional arrangements for  the care of children will be promoted.

    As used in this compact:

    (a)  "Child"  means  a person who, by reason of minority, is legally subject to parental, guardianship or similar control.

    (b)  "Sending agency" means  a  party  state,  officer  or  employee thereof; a subdivision of a party state, or officer or employee 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.

    (c)  "Receiving state" means the state to which  a  child  is  sent, brought,  or caused to be sent or brought, whether by public authorities or private persons or agencies, and whether for placement with state  or local  public  authorities  or  for  placement  with private agencies or persons.

    (d)  "Placement" means the arrangement for the care of a child in  a family  free or boarding home or in a child-caring agency or institution but does not include  any  institution  caring  for  the  mentally  ill, mentally defective or epileptic or any institution primarily educational in character, and any hospital or other medical facility.

    (a)  No  sending  agency  shall  send, bring, or cause to be sent or brought into any other party state any child  for  placement  in  foster care  or  as  a  preliminary  to  a possible adoption unless the sending agency shall comply with each and every requirement set  forth  in  this article  and  with  the applicable laws of the receiving state governing the placement of children therein.

    (b)  Prior to sending, bringing or causing any child to be  sent  or brought  into  a  receiving  state  for placement in foster care or as a preliminary to a possible adoption, the sending agency shall furnish the appropriate public authorities in receiving state written notice of  the intention to send, bring, or place the child in the receiving state. The notice shall contain:

    (c)  Any public officer or agency in a receiving state which  is  in receipt  of  a  notice  pursuant  to  paragraph  (b) of this article may request of the sending agency,  or  any  other  appropriate  officer  or agency  of  or  in  the sending agency's state, and shall be entitled to receive therefrom, such supporting or additional information as  it  may deem  necessary  under  the  circumstances  to carry out the purpose and policy of this compact.

    (d)  The child shall not be sent, brought, or caused to be  sent  or brought   into   the   receiving  state  until  the  appropriate  public authorities in the receiving state shall notify the sending  agency,  in writing, to the effect that the proposed placement does not appear to be contrary to the interests of the child.

    The  sending,  bringing,  or  causing to be sent or brought into any receiving state of a child in violation of the  terms  of  this  compact shall  constitute  a  violation  of the laws respecting the placement of children of both the state in which the sending  agency  is  located  or from which it sends or brings the child and of the receiving state. Such
violation may be punished or subjected to penalty in either jurisdiction in  accordance  with  its  laws.  In  addition to liability for any such punishment or penalty, any such  violation  shall  constitute  full  and sufficient  grounds  for  the  suspension  or revocation of any license, permit, or other legal authorization held by the  sending  agency  which
empowers or allows it to place, or care for children.

    (a)  The  sending  agency  shall  retain jurisdiction over the child sufficient  to  determine  all  matters  in  relation  to  the  custody, supervision, care, treatment and disposition of the child which it would have had if the child had remained in the sending agency's state,  until the  child  is  adopted, reaches majority, becomes self-supporting or is discharged with the concurrence of  the  appropriate  authority  in  the receiving  state.  Such jurisdiction  shall  also  include the power to effect or cause the return of the  child  or  its transfer to another location and custody pursuant to law. The sending agency shall continue to have financial responsibility for  support and maintenance of  the child during the period of the placement. Nothing contained herein shall defeat a claim of jurisdiction by a receiving state sufficient to deal with an act of delinquency or crime committed therein.

    (b)  When the sending agency is a public agency, it may  enter  into an  agreement  with  an  authorized  public  or  private  agency  in the receiving state providing for the performance of one or more services in respect of such case by the latter as agent for the sending agency.

    (c)  Nothing in this compact shall be construed to prevent a private charitable agency authorized to place children in  the  receiving  state from  performing services or acting as agent in that state for a private charitable agency of the sending state; nor to prevent the agency in the receiving  state  from  discharging  financial  responsibility  for  the support and maintenance of a child who has been placed on behalf of  the sending  agency  without  relieving  the  responsibility  set  forth  in paragraph (a) hereof.

    A child adjudicated delinquent may be placed in an institution in another party  jurisdiction pursuant  to this compact but no such placement shall be made unless the child is given a court hearing on notice to the parent or guardian with opportunity to be heard, prior to his being sent to such other party jurisdiction for institutional care and the court finds that:

    1.  Equivalent facilities for the child are not available in the sending agency's jurisdiction; and

    2.  Institutional care in the other jurisdiction is in the best interest of the child and will not produce undue hardship.

    The  executive head of each jurisdiction party to this compact shall designate an officer who shall  be  general  coordinator  of  activities under this compact in his jurisdiction and who, acting jointly with like officers  of  other  party jurisdictions, shall have power to promulgate rules and regulations to  carry  out  more  effectively  the  terms  and
provisions of this compact.

    This compact shall not apply to:

    (a)  The  sending or bringing of a child into a receiving state by his parent, step-parent, grandparent, adult  brother  or  sister,  adult uncle  or  aunt,  or  his  guardian and leaving the child with any such relative or non-agency guardian in the receiving state. 
  
     (b)  Any placement, sending or bringing  of a child  into a  receiving  state pursuant  to any other interstate compact to which both the state from which the child is sent or brought and the receiving state are party, or to any other agreement between said states which has the force of law.

    This compact shall be open to joinder by  any  state,  territory  or possession   of  the  United  States, the District of Columbia,  the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, and, with  the consent of Congress, the Government  of Canada or any province thereof. It shall become effective with respect to any such jurisdiction when such jurisdiction has enacted the same into law.  Withdrawal from this compact shall be by the enactment of a statute repealing the same, but shall not take effect until two years after the effective date of such statute and until written notice of the withdrawal has been given by the withdrawing state to the Governor of each other party jurisdiction. Withdrawal of a party state shall not affect the rights, duties and obligations under this compact  of  any sending agency therein with respect to a placement made prior to the effective date of withdrawal.
               

    The provisions of this  compact  shall  be  liberally  construed  to effectuate the purposes thereof. The provisions of this compact shall be severable  and  if  any  phrase,  clause,  sentence or provision of this compact is declared to be contrary to  the  constitution  of  any  party state  or  of  the  United  States  or  the applicability thereof to any government, agency, person or circumstance is held invalid, the validity of the remainder of this compact and the applicability  thereof  to  any government,  agency,  person  or  circumstance  shall  not  be  affected thereby.  If  this compact shall be held contrary to the constitution of any state party thereto, the compact shall  remain  in  full  force  and effect as to the remaining states and in full force and effect as to the state affected as to all severable matters. (Source: P.A. 78-1198.)

    (45 ILCS 15/2)
    Sec. 2.
    Financial responsibility  for  any  child  placed  pursuant  to  the provisions  of the Interstate Compact on the Placement of Children shall be determined in accordance with the provisions of Article V thereof  in the first instance. However, in the event of partial or complete default of  performance  thereunder,  the  provisions  of  the  Revised  Uniform Reciprocal  Enforcement  of  Support  Act,  approved August 28, 1969, as amended, also may be invoked. (Source: P. A. 78-1198.)

    (45 ILCS 15/3)
    Sec. 3.
    The "appropriate public authorities" as used in Article III  of  the Interstate Compact on the Placement of Children shall, with reference to this state, mean the Department of Children and Family Services, and the Department  shall  receive and act with reference to notices required by Article III. (Source: P. A. 78-1198.)

    (45 ILCS 15/4)
    Sec. 4.
    As used in paragraph (a) of Article V of the Interstate  Compact  on the  Placement  of  Children,  the  phrase "Appropriate authority in the receiving state" with reference to this state means  the  Department  of Children and Family Services. (Source: P. A. 78-1198.)

    (45 ILCS 15/5)
    Sec.  5.  
    The officers  and  agencies  of  this  State   and   its subdivisions  having  authority to place children are empowered to enter into agreements with appropriate officers or agencies  of  or  in  other party  states  pursuant  to paragraph (b) of Article V of the Interstate Compact on the Placement of Children. Any such agreement which  contains a   financial   commitment  or  imposes  a  financial  obligation  on  a subdivision of this State  shall  not  be  binding  unless  it  has  the approval   in   writing  of  the  chief  local  fiscal  officer  of  the subdivision. (Source: P.A. 82-474.)

    (45 ILCS 15/6)
    Sec. 6.
    Any  requirements  for  visitation,  inspection  or  supervision  of children, homes, institutions or other agencies in another  party  state which  may  apply under the Interstate Compact on Juveniles or any other Act or regulation shall be deemed to be met if performed pursuant to  an agreement entered into by appropriate officers or agencies of this state or  a  subdivision thereof as contemplated by paragraph (b) of Article V of the Interstate Compact on the Placement of Children. (Source: P. A. 78-1198.)

    (45 ILCS 15/7)
    Sec. 7.
    No Act or regulation restricting out of state placement shall  apply to  placements  made pursuant to the Interstate Compact on the Placement of Children. (Source: P. A. 78-1198.)

    (45 ILCS 15/8)
    Sec. 8.
    Any court having jurisdiction to place delinquent children may place such a child in an institution in another state pursuant to  Article  VI of  the Interstate Compact on the Placement of Children and shall retain jurisdiction as provided in Article V thereof. (Source: P. A. 78-1198.)