MATTER OF STACEY B.

DEBRA J. KIEDAISCH, J. The New York Law Guardian assigned by this court to represent the subject juvenile (Stacey) in this proceeding has moved to dismiss a requisition for return to the State of South Carolina of Stacey under the Interstate Compact on Juveniles (hereafter, the Compact; McKinney's Uncons Laws of NY §§ 1801-1806 [L 1955, ch 155, as amended]). The petitioner Orange County Department of Law opposes the motion to dismiss the petition and seeks Stacey be returned to authorities receive the juvenile. The Compact further provides it shall have the full force and effect of law within such state which executes it (see, art XIII). The Compact reserves to the states joining the Compact that particular provisions shall be severable and without effect as to such participating state if, among other things, it is contrary to the constitution of the state, or the applicability of the provision is held invalid to the government or an agency of the state (see, art XV). The clear import of the language of the Compact is that the state signatories to the Compact have agreed as a matter of policy to abide by the orders of member states with respect to the orders for the placement and custody of juveniles who appear to be lawfully subject to the jurisdiction of the requisitioning state, and to cooperate in the implementation of the return of runaway juveniles to such states. It is apparent that there would be inherent practical and logistical difficulties in requiring best interests hearings to be held in distant jurisdictions to which a juvenile may have wandered far away from the jurisdiction which has lawfully conducted custody related proceedings concerning the juvenile, and where relevant witnesses live. While the Compact reserves to the signatory states the right to withhold that cooperation in cases where to grant it would violate the state's constitution or the mandate of governmental entities or agencies, the burden of proof to prove such violation falls upon the juvenile resisting requisition. It is analogous in our own local family law jurisprudence to a Family Court Act § 1028 hearing where the burden is upon the governmental agency seeking to curtail the custodial rights of the natural parents to show "the return presents an imminent risk to the child's life or health" (Family Ct Act § 1028 [a]). Thus, this court determines the standard before this court in requisition proceedings under the Compact where a reasonable showing has been made as to the legality of the proceedings underlying the order of requisition is not a general "best interest" of the child standard. Rather, the burden of proof in this case is upon the juvenile to show that return to the requisitioning State of South Carolina would place the juvenile in imminent risk to her life or mental or physical health.