38-1201.
Legislative findings and policy.
It is hereby found and declared: (1) That finding suitable homes for children who have lost or never had them requires the full attention and resources of the state of Kansas; (2) that the needs of children and of adults cannot be met by restricting child placement services and supervision to the state of Kansas; (3) that would-be parents and children have need for love and security and fulfillment that can be met only when children in need of placement are matched with adults who can care for them; (4) a variety of circumstances makes interstate placements of children essential and offers compelling reasons for an interstate compact under which the jurisdictional, administrative and human rights and obligations involved can be protected.
It shall therefore be the policy of this state, in adopting the interstate compact on the placement of children, to cooperate fully with other states in providing that no children shall be sent or brought into any other party state 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 interstate compact.
History:
L. 1976, ch. 206, § 1; July 1.
Notes of Decisions
In the Interest of S.R.C.-Q., 367 P.3d 1276 (Kan. Ct. App. 2016).
· cites it 2× “The Kansas version of the ICPC is found at K.S.A. 38-1201 through K.S.A. 38-1206. Its introductory provisions state: “It is hereby found and declared: (1) That finding suitable homes for children who have lost or never had them requires the full attention and resources of the…”
In the Interest of N.A.C., 329 P.3d 458 (Kan. 2014).
“in compliance with the Interstate Compact on Placement of Children (ICPC), K.S.A. 38-1201 et seq., which was necessary because Maternal Cousins resided in another state.”
In re Adoption of J.H.G., 869 P.2d 640 (Kan. 1994).
“38-1309 and amendments thereto; and “(G) whether the interstate compact on placement of children, K.S.A. 38-1201 et seq., and amendments thereto, and the Indian child welfare act, 25 U.”
Boyd v. Garvert, 9 P.3d 1161 (Colo. Ct. App. 2000).
· cites it 2× “1999 and K.S.A. §§ 38-1201, et seq. (1999). According to the Compact, Kansas was the receiving state.”
In the Interest of N.A.C., 361 P.3d 771 (Kan. Ct. App. 2013).
“In Kansas, the legislature enacted tire ICPC as K.S.A. 38-1201 et seq. Article 111(b) of K.”
In the Interest of D.C., 92 P.3d 1138 (Kan. Ct. App. 2004).
“See K.S.A. 38-1201 etseq. Consequently, SRS, the League, and tire guardian ad litem decided to terminate the Interstate Compact process for the Arizona relatives and attempted to place tire child with the Parsons aunt.”
In Re the Adoption of A.M.M., 949 P.2d 1155 (Kan. Ct. App. 1997).
“, the prospective adoptive parents, appeal the district court’s order granting the natural mother’s motion to revoke her consent and dismiss the adoption petition based on failure to comply with the Interstate Compact on the Placement of Children (ICPC), K.S.A. 38-1201 et seq.…”
Kaiser v. McClendon, 639 P.2d 39 (Kan. 1982).
“The district court ruled: “WHEREUPON, the Court having heard the arguments, having reviewed the flies herein, and being otherwise fully advised in the premises, finds that the order entered by The Superior Court of the State of California in and for the County of Sacramento, as…”
In re S.R.C.-Q. – Powell (Kan. Ct. App. 2016).
· cites it 3× “K.S.A. 38-1201. 5. Under Article III, subsection (a) of the Interstate Compact on Placement of Children, K.”
In Re Dc, 92 P.3d 1138 (Kan. Ct. App. 2004).
“See K.S.A. 38-1201 et seq. Consequently, SRS, the League, and the guardian ad litem decided to terminate the Interstate Compact process for the Arizona relatives and attempted to place the child with the Parsons aunt.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.