Once a court has determined through the adjudicatory process that State intervention is necessary to protect a child from neglect or abuse, the responsibility for developing and implementing an appropriate long-term dispositional plan is commonly shared by child welfare agencies and juvenile courts, both of which are increasingly called upon to play the role of institutional substitute parent. At its best, the relationship between these institutions functions smoothly, with both recognizing their mutual dependence and sharing an understanding of the boundaries of their responsibilities. Yet when conflicts arise over which institution has ultimate authority for managing the lives of foster children, there is little consistency in the application of doctrinal tools for resolving the conflicts. This article considers the tensions that arise from this realm of shared responsibility and suggests an analytical framework for resolving these institutional conflicts that is better suited to the needs of juvenile law and practice than many of the tools commonly applied to the resolution of jurisdictional disputes. This article's thesis is that ultimate responsibility should rest with the juvenile court for determining when deference to administrative decisionmaking is appropriate, and that decisions over when to exercise such deference must account for the full range of circumstances that inform each case. 225 footnotes