I. Additional Resources
ICPC: A Manual and Instructional Guide for Juvenile and Family Court Judges, NCJFCJ located at http://www.ncjfcj.org/sites/default/files/ICPCManualandGuideFullDoc_0.pdf.
Vivek Sankaran, Foster Kids in Limbo: The Effects of the Interstate Compact on the Placement of Children on the Permanency of Children in Foster Care (2014) located at http://www.law.umich.edu/centersandprograms/pcl/Documents/Final%20Summary%20to%20Casey.pdf
Child Welfare Information Gateway, Legal and Court Issues Regarding Inter-jurisdictional Placements located at https://www.childwelfare.gov/topics/permanency/interjurisdictional/legal/
Rejecting the argument of prospective adoptive parents, residents of Colorado, with whom a child had been placed by the child's Texas managing conservator, that the Colorado court where the petition for adoption was pending had jurisdiction over the child, a Texas Court of Appeals in Unger v. Baker, 01-89-00803-CV (Tex. App. Houston 1st Dist. Aug. 18, 1989)(unpublished), held that under Article V(a) of the ICPC, the managing conservator, as the sending agency, retained jurisdiction over the child because the child had not yet been adopted. Therefore, the child was subject to the jurisdiction of the Texas trial court in which the managing conservator had filed a motion to remove the child from the temporary placement with the prospective adoptive parents and overruled the prospective adoptive parents' motion for leave to file mandamus seeking rescission of the Texas trial court's order overruling their special appearance to contest the Texas court's jurisdiction.
Washington State ICPC case, In the Matter of the Dependency of D.F.M., 157 WA. App. 179 (Wash. Ct. App. 2010). Located at http://www.washapp.org/Opinion.aspx?id=148.