Department of Human Services v. D.C.B.

“Placement in foster care” within the meaning of the Interstate Compact on the Placement of Children (ICPC) means “living arrangements that are substitutes for parental care.” Therefore, ICPC mandates are inapplicable when a child resides with their parent.

D.C.B. and N.L.B. (“parents”) appealed a juvenile court ruling that the Interstate Compact on the Placement of Children (ICPC) prevents their children from residing in Washington with their mother without Washington’s approval. The parents argued the ICPC does not apply to their case, because the statutory text limiting ICPC application to “placement[s] in foster care” means the compact does not apply where children reside with their “natural parents.” The Department of Human Services argued that “placement in foster care” includes situations where a person “unfit to have legal custody or guardianship” is caring for a child. “Placement in foster care” within the meaning of the Interstate Compact on the Placement of Children (ICPC) means “living arrangements that are substitutes for parental care.” Therefore, ICPC mandates are inapplicable when a child resides with their parent. The Court found that the plain meaning of foster care is limited to non-parental substitute homes. Other child services statutes in place when the ICPC was enacted also reflect that definition. Additionally, the legislative history of the ICPC shows the legislature did not “underst[and] the phrase ‘placements in foster care’ to include circumstances where a child is placed in a parent’s physical custody.” Reversed and remanded.