ALTERNATIVE OPTIONS & SERV. v. Chapman

• Decision Date: 30 December 2004
• Docket Number: No. 20030186-CA.,20030186-CA.
• Citation: 106 P.3d 744,2004 UT App 488
• Parties: ALTERNATIVE OPTIONS AND SERVICES FOR CHILDREN, a Utah non-profit corporation dba Act of Love; Adoption Center of Choice, Inc., a Utah corporation; and A TLC Adoption, a Utah corporation, Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. Michael CHAPMAN, in his official capacity as Deputy Compact Administrator of the Interstate Compact on Placement of Children and in his official capacity as President of the Association of Administrators of the Interstate Compact on the Placement of Children; Robin Arnold-Williams, in her official capacity as Executive Director of the Utah Department of Human Services; Janice P. Knaphus, in her official capacity as Licensing Specialist in the Office of Licensing of the Utah Department of Human Services; the Utah Department of Human Services, a governmental department of the State of Utah; Dennis Eshman, in his official capacity as Manager of the Secretariat Staff of the Association of Administrators of the Interstate Compact on the Placement of Children; the Association of Administrators of the Interstate Compact on the Placement of Children; and the American Public Human Services Association, in its capacity as Secretariat of the Association of Administrators of the Interstate Compact on the Placement of Children, Defendants and Appellees.
• Court: Utah Court of Appeals

106 P.3d 744

2004 UT App 488

ALTERNATIVE OPTIONS AND SERVICES FOR CHILDREN, a Utah non-profit corporation dba Act of Love; Adoption Center of Choice, Inc., a Utah corporation; and A TLC Adoption, a Utah corporation, Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. Michael CHAPMAN, in his official capacity as Deputy Compact Administrator of the Interstate Compact on Placement of Children and in his official capacity as President of the Association of Administrators of the Interstate Compact on the Placement of Children; Robin Arnold-Williams, in her official capacity as Executive Director of the Utah Department of Human Services; Janice P. Knaphus, in her official capacity as Licensing Specialist in the Office of Licensing of the Utah Department of Human Services; the Utah Department of Human Services, a governmental department of the State of Utah; Dennis Eshman, in his official capacity as Manager of the Secretariat Staff of the Association of Administrators of the Interstate Compact on the Placement of Children; the Association of Administrators of the Interstate Compact on the Placement of Children; and the American Public Human Services Association, in its capacity as Secretariat of the Association of Administrators of the Interstate Compact on the Placement of Children, Defendants and Appellees.

No. 20030186-CA.

Court of Appeals of Utah.

December 30, 2004.

Larry S. Jenkins and Richard J. Armstrong, Wood & Crapo LLC, Salt Lake City, for Appellants.

Mark L. Shurtleff, Attorney General, Joel A. Ferre, Craig L. Barlow, Assistant Attorneys General, Paul C. Farr, and Michael W. Homer, Suitter Axland, Salt Lake City, for Appellees.

Before Judges JACKSON, ORME, and THORNE.

OPINION

ORME, Judge:

¶ 1 Plaintiffs sought a declaratory judgment regarding the Interstate Compact on Placement of Children and its application to expectant mothers who travel to Utah to deliver their children and place them for adoption. The trial court, concluding Plaintiffs failed to request relief for an alleged violation of their own rights, granted Defendants' motions to dismiss for lack of standing. We affirm in part, but reverse and remand in part.

BACKGROUND

¶ 2 The Interstate Compact on Placement of Children (ICPC) is a uniform law that has been enacted by all fifty states, the District of Columbia, and the U.S. Virgin Islands. See Secretariat to the Association of Administration of the Interstate Compact on the Placement of Children, Guide to the Interstate Compact on the Placement of Children 2 (2001). Utah has adopted the ICPC, which is codified at Utah Code Ann. § 62A-4a-701 (2000). The purpose of the ICPC is to promote cooperation among the states in the interstate placement of children to ensure that the best interests of children are met. See Utah Code Ann. § 62A-4a-701 art. I.

¶ 3 Plaintiffs are three licensed adoption agencies located in Utah: Adoption Center of Choice, Inc.; A TLC Adoption, Inc.; and Alternative Options and Services for Children, which does business as "Act of Love." Act of Love and Adoption Center of Choice have taken this appeal and will be referred to collectively as "Appellants." Appellants inform us they are responsible for protecting the best interests of children who are relinquished to them for adoption. In doing so, they are required to follow certain ICPC regulations intended to ensure that "[e]ach child requiring placement shall receive the maximum opportunity to be placed in a suitable environment and with persons or institutions having appropriate qualifications and facilities to provide necessary and desirable care." Id. § 62A-4a-701 art. I(1). It is undisputed that a violation of an ICPC provision can result in the suspension and revocation of an adoption agency's license.

¶ 4 The ICPC provisions are designed to notify the appropriate authorities in the "receiving state"¹ of all the circumstances surrounding the proposed placement. See id. § 62A-4a-701 art. III(2). Thus, the "sending agency"² is required to provide

the receiving state written notice of the intention to send, bring or place the child in the receiving state. The notice shall contain:

(a) The name, date, and place of birth of the child.

(b) The identity and address or addresses of the parents or legal guardian.

(c) The name and address of the person, agency, or institution to or with which the sending agency proposes to send, bring, or place the child.

(d) A full statement of the reasons for such proposed action and evidence of the authority pursuant to which the placement is proposed to be made.

Id. The receiving state is then required to "notify the sending agency, in writing, . . . that the proposed placement does not appear to be contrary to the interests of the child." Id. § 62A-4a-701 art. III(2)(f).

¶ 5 To manage the daily administrative tasks of the ICPC, each state appoints a Compact Administrator and one or more Deputy Administrators. At least as of the time the trial court acted, Michael Chapman was the Deputy Compact Administrator for Utah, with his office located within the Division of Child and Family Services (DCFS), a division of the Department of Human Services; Robin Arnold-Williams was the Executive Director of the Department of Human Services; and Janice P. Knaphus was a Licensing Specialist in the Office of Licensing within the Department of Human Services. These Defendants are collectively referred to as the "Utah Defendants."

¶ 6 The Association of Administrators of the Interstate Compact on Placement of Children (AAICPC) is a private organization based in Washington D.C., the eligible members of which are the ICPC administrators for each state. Dennis Eshman heads the Secretariat Staff of the AAICPC. The American Public Human Services Association (APHSA) is a nonprofit corporation based in Washington D.C. that provides administrative services to various private, public-interest organizations, including the AAICPC. These Defendants are collectively referred to as the "Association Defendants."

¶ 7 The AAICPC issues advisory opinions regarding questions about the application of the ICPC. Opinion # 49, issued by the AAICPC on June 30, 1986, advises that when an "expectant mother crosses a state line as part of the placement plan and arrangement [for the adoption of her unborn child], the transaction should be viewed as an interstate placement," and is therefore subject to the ICPC's notice requirements. On December 3, 2001, Knaphus notified all Utah licensed child placing agencies, including Appellants, that as of November 19, 2001, the Department of Human Services would use Opinion # 49 as guidance and "utilize [this opinion] on all regulatory and licensing actions concerning child placing agencies where expectant mothers residing in another state travel to Utah to give birth and place their child for adoption."³

¶ 8 On June 10, 2002, Plaintiffs filed a complaint in state court against Utah Defendants seeking declaratory and injunctive relief from the court. Plaintiffs alleged that "Opinion # 49's interpretation of the ICPC and the consequent requirements defendants have imposed upon [P]laintiffs impair expectant mothers' constitutional rights."⁴ Plaintiffs asked the court to declare "that the ICPC does not apply when an expectant mother travels to Utah to give birth in Utah" and place her child for adoption, as well as to enjoin Utah Defendants from enforcing the ICPC in the case of expectant mothers. Plaintiffs argued that because "[a] significant part of [their] businesses involve non-resident, expectant birth mothers who deliver their babies in Utah for adoption . . . [they] will be irreparably harmed if Opinion # 49 is enforced against them."

¶ 9 On August 9, 2002, Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint against Utah Defendants which added specific allegations addressing their own direct injury resulting from Utah Defendants' implementation of Opinion # 49. Specifically, the amended complaint described a situation where Act of Love facilitated an adoption for a mother from Pennsylvania who traveled to Utah to give birth and place her child for adoption. An adoption family was found in Colorado, but due to complications involving approval from the Pennsylvania ICPC administrator — who took the position that Pennsylvania was the sending agency, despite the fact that the baby was born in Utah — the process was significantly delayed, resulting in increased costs for Act of Love. Additionally, Plaintiffs excluded from the amended complaint the allegation in the original complaint that Opinion # 49 infringes on the constitutional right of an expectant mother to travel.

¶ 10 On September 3, 2002, Plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint, naming Association Defendants as additional parties because, after the litigation was commenced, Chapman sought guidance from the AAICPC. The AAICPC responded, reaffirming its position expressed in Opinion # 49. Plaintiffs argue that Chapman's actions and the AAICPC's response make Association Defendants proper parties to the litigation.

¶ 11 On July 1, 2002, Utah Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a justiciable controversy and lack of standing to raise the constitutional rights of expectant mothers. On October 17, 2002, Association Defendants filed their own motion to dismiss, as well as joining Utah Defendants' motion to dismiss, arguing that Plaintiffs failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted and that Association Defendants' only involvement was to provide Utah Defendants with a nonbinding opinion and advice on the interpretation of the ICPC.

¶ 12 On October 16, 2002, Plaintiffs filed a motion for partial summary judgment asking the court to interpret the ICPC. On February 25, 2003, the court granted Utah Defendants' and Association Defendants' motions to dismiss, determining that "Plaintiffs lack standing because they fail to request relief for an alleged violation of their own constitutional rights. Instead, Pl...