Main Menu

Jessica J. v. State

In Jessica J. v. State,[1] the supreme court held that the superior court was correct in not considering the best interest of the child as part of an Interstate Compact for Juveniles (ICJ) requisition proceeding. Fifteen year-old Jessica traveled from Iowa to Alaska to spend the summer with family friends with her mother’s permission. Her mother subsequently changed her mind and told Jessica to return to Iowa, but she refused. Jessica’s mother filed a petition and supporting documents under ICJ Rules in the Iowa courts to seek Jessica’s forced return. Upon receipt of the paperwork, Alaska’s attorney general requested a hearing in the Alaska superior court. The superior court determine that there was no authority to conduct a best-interests hearing in Alaska, determined the requisition paperwork was in order, and ordered Jessica’s forced return to Iowa. On appeal, Jessica argues that the superior court erred in not conducting a best-interests analysis before ordering her return to Iowa. The supreme court held that the superior court was correct in not considering the best interest of the child as part of the ICJ requisition proceeding. The supreme court found that the home state was the correct forum to address the best-interests determination of the child, including suspicions of abuse or neglect. The supreme court determined that a plain language reading of the applicable ICJ rule places this responsibility in the home state. The supreme court further reasoned that the legislative history of the ICJ demonstrated a need for uniformity among states. Finally, the supreme court notes that other states have come out on either side of this issue, but that the reasoning it found more persuasive was that the home court is in a better position to make the determination given that it has the more significant, established, and longer-term contacts with the child. The supreme court affirmed the superior court, holding that a best-interest inquiry was not part of the ICJ requisition proceeding and ordering the return of Jessica to Iowa.

[1] 442 P.3d 771 (Alaska 2019).

Jessica J. v. State

In Jessica J. v. State,[1] the supreme court held that the superior court was correct in not considering the best interest of the child as part of an Interstate Compact for Juveniles (ICJ) requisition proceeding. Fifteen year-old Jessica traveled from Iowa to Alaska to spend the summer with family friends with her mother’s permission. Her mother subsequently changed her mind and told Jessica to return to Iowa, but she refused. Jessica’s mother filed a petition and supporting documents under ICJ Rules in the Iowa courts to seek Jessica’s forced return. Upon receipt of the paperwork, Alaska’s attorney general requested a hearing in the Alaska superior court. The superior court determine that there was no authority to conduct a best-interests hearing in Alaska, determined the requisition paperwork was in order, and ordered Jessica’s forced return to Iowa. On appeal, Jessica argues that the superior court erred in not conducting a best-interests analysis before ordering her return to Iowa. The supreme court held that the superior court was correct in not considering the best interest of the child as part of the ICJ requisition proceeding. The supreme court found that the home state was the correct forum to address the best-interests determination of the child, including suspicions of abuse or neglect. The supreme court determined that a plain language reading of the applicable ICJ rule places this responsibility in the home state. The supreme court further reasoned that the legislative history of the ICJ demonstrated a need for uniformity among states. Finally, the supreme court notes that other states have come out on either side of this issue, but that the reasoning it found more persuasive was that the home court is in a better position to make the determination given that it has the more significant, established, and longer-term contacts with the child. The supreme court affirmed the superior court, holding that a best-interest inquiry was not part of the ICJ requisition proceeding and ordering the return of Jessica to Iowa.

[1] 442 P.3d 771 (Alaska 2019).