Utah Supreme Court weighs whether interstate compact blocked father’s bid to regain custody

Appellate counsel for a father whose parental rights were later terminated urged the Utah Supreme Court Wednesday that trial counsel was constitutionally ineffective when he did not seek an alternative to the Interstate Compact on the Placement of Children (ICPC) after ICPC requests were denied while the father lacked stable housing.

"So under the plain language of the ICPC, it does not apply to biological parents," counsel told the court, arguing that the ICPC regulates nonparental placements and that Utah’s shelter‑hearing statute, not the ICPC, should govern placements with biological parents.

The argument focused on two linked questions: (1) whether the ICPC applies to a biological parent who lives out of state, and (2) whether counsel’s failure to ask for a non‑ICPC alternative — such as a Regulation 3 courtesy check or a sending‑state site visit — prejudiced the father under the Strickland ineffective‑assistance framework.

Counsel recited the record: two ICPC requests in April and June 2023 were not completed because the father, at times, lacked a permanent residence and told caseworkers he was moving; in an October 2023 hearing the record reflects the father was living in a hotel; in January 2024 counsel asked for an expedited ICPC but the juvenile court declined; the termination petition was…