9 Ohio opinions name it 1 courts 2021–2026 9 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Ohio courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
In re of A.G.green2 sentences2025State courts must instruct the parties to inform the court if they subsequently receive information that provides reason to know the child is an Indian child. 25 C.F.R. 23.107(a). {¶ 42} V.P. directs us to this court’s prior statements that “ ‘[t]he importance of a proper ICWA inquiry cannot be overstated’ because the failure to comply with its notice provisions may result in invalidation of the juvenile court’s custody determination under 25 U.S.C. 1914.” In re A.G., 2024-Ohio-2136, ¶ 44 (10th Dist.), quoting In re D.E., 2021- Ohio-524, ¶ 61 (10th Dist.). 2025State courts must instruct the parties to inform the court if they subsequently receive information that provides reason to know the child is an Indian child. 25 C.F.R. 23.107(a). {¶ 42} V.P. directs us to this court’s prior statements that “ ‘[t]he importance of a proper ICWA inquiry cannot be overstated’ because the failure to comply with its notice provisions may result in invalidation of the juvenile court’s custody determination under 25 U.S.C. 1914.” In re A.G., 2024-Ohio-2136, ¶ 44 (10th Dist.), quoting In re D.E., 2021- Ohio-524, ¶ 61 (10th Dist.). | 1 | 2 |
In re B.M.green2 sentences2026See, e.g., In re L.B., 2025-Ohio-2269, at ¶ 46-48 (5th Dist.) (case plan clearly stated minor children were not protected by ICWA and failure of trial court to make inquiry at permanent custody hearing did not affect legitimacy of the proceedings or result in a manifest miscarriage of justice); In re L.W., 2025-Ohio-2236, ¶ 46 (10th Dist.) (because there was no indication from Mother that she or her minor child had Native American heritage, trial court’s lack of an ICWA inquiry did not cause a manifest miscarriage of justice); see also In re B.M., 2025-Ohio-1786, ¶ 43-44 (5th Dist.). 2026See, e.g., In re L.B., 2025-Ohio-2269, at ¶ 46-48 (5th Dist.) (case plan clearly stated minor children were not protected by ICWA and failure of trial court to make inquiry at permanent custody hearing did not affect legitimacy of the proceedings or result in a manifest miscarriage of justice); In re L.W., 2025-Ohio-2236, ¶ 46 (10th Dist.) (because there was no indication from Mother that she or her minor child had Native American heritage, trial court’s lack of an ICWA inquiry did not cause a manifest miscarriage of justice); see also In re B.M., 2025-Ohio-1786, ¶ 43-44 (5th Dist.). | 1 | 1 |
In re L.B.green2 sentences2026See, e.g., In re L.B., 2025-Ohio-2269, at ¶ 46-48 (5th Dist.) (case plan clearly stated minor children were not protected by ICWA and failure of trial court to make inquiry at permanent custody hearing did not affect legitimacy of the proceedings or result in a manifest miscarriage of justice); In re L.W., 2025-Ohio-2236, ¶ 46 (10th Dist.) (because there was no indication from Mother that she or her minor child had Native American heritage, trial court’s lack of an ICWA inquiry did not cause a manifest miscarriage of justice); see also In re B.M., 2025-Ohio-1786, ¶ 43-44 (5th Dist.). 2026See, e.g., In re L.B., 2025-Ohio-2269, at ¶ 46-48 (5th Dist.) (case plan clearly stated minor children were not protected by ICWA and failure of trial court to make inquiry at permanent custody hearing did not affect legitimacy of the proceedings or result in a manifest miscarriage of justice); In re L.W., 2025-Ohio-2236, ¶ 46 (10th Dist.) (because there was no indication from Mother that she or her minor child had Native American heritage, trial court’s lack of an ICWA inquiry did not cause a manifest miscarriage of justice); see also In re B.M., 2025-Ohio-1786, ¶ 43-44 (5th Dist.). | 1 | 1 |
In re L.W.green2 sentences2026See, e.g., In re L.B., 2025-Ohio-2269, at ¶ 46-48 (5th Dist.) (case plan clearly stated minor children were not protected by ICWA and failure of trial court to make inquiry at permanent custody hearing did not affect legitimacy of the proceedings or result in a manifest miscarriage of justice); In re L.W., 2025-Ohio-2236, ¶ 46 (10th Dist.) (because there was no indication from Mother that she or her minor child had Native American heritage, trial court’s lack of an ICWA inquiry did not cause a manifest miscarriage of justice); see also In re B.M., 2025-Ohio-1786, ¶ 43-44 (5th Dist.). 2026See, e.g., In re L.B., 2025-Ohio-2269, at ¶ 46-48 (5th Dist.) (case plan clearly stated minor children were not protected by ICWA and failure of trial court to make inquiry at permanent custody hearing did not affect legitimacy of the proceedings or result in a manifest miscarriage of justice); In re L.W., 2025-Ohio-2236, ¶ 46 (10th Dist.) (because there was no indication from Mother that she or her minor child had Native American heritage, trial court’s lack of an ICWA inquiry did not cause a manifest miscarriage of justice); see also In re B.M., 2025-Ohio-1786, ¶ 43-44 (5th Dist.). | 1 | 1 |
In re R.M.green2 sentences2025See also Matter of R.M., 2025-Ohio-1421, ¶ 35 (5th Dist.) (finding no plain error in a trial judge’s failure to make an ICWA inquiry where parent failed to raise an ICWA objection in trial court). 2025See also Matter of R.M., 2025-Ohio-1421, ¶ 35 (5th Dist.) (finding no plain error in a trial judge’s failure to make an ICWA inquiry where parent failed to raise an ICWA objection in trial court). | 1 | 1 |
In re A.G.green2 sentences2025See e.g., In re A.G., 2024-Ohio-3091, ¶ 60 (9th Dist.). {¶17} Moreover, the procedural safeguards set forth in ICWA apply to child custody proceedings only “when the subject child is an Indian child,” as defined in ICWA. 2025See e.g., In re A.G., 2024-Ohio-3091, ¶ 60 (9th Dist.). {¶17} Moreover, the procedural safeguards set forth in ICWA apply to child custody proceedings only “when the subject child is an Indian child,” as defined in ICWA. | 1 | 1 |
In re S.F. A Minor Childgreen1 sentence2024See, e.g., In re A.G., 2017-Ohio-6892 (8th Dist.); In re N.H., 2016-Ohio-1547 (8th Dist.); In re: A.C., 2013-Ohio-1802 (8th Dist.); In re S.F., 2018-Ohio-2404, ¶ 19-22 (8th Dist.). -7- Warren CA2024-06-035 CA2024-06-042 there is any reason to believe the children involved in a custody proceeding are a member of or eligible for membership in an Indian tribe. | 1 | 1 |
In re Morrisgreen1 sentence2024Id. at ¶ 61, fn. 10, citing In re Morris, 491 Mich. 81, 101 (2012). {¶ 21} Because there is no indication in the record that the juvenile court even attempted to make the necessary ICWA inquiry, and because there is no indication that Mother was ever put on notice of the potential for ICWA to apply, we find the trial court committed plain error.4 {¶ 22} Mother's second assignment of error is sustained. {¶ 23} Mother's Assignment of Error No. 1: 4. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Ohio. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Adoptive Couple v. Baby Girl
green
1 sentence2026In Adoptive Couple v. Baby Girl, 570 U.S. 637 (2013), the United States Supreme Court observed that 25 U.S.C. 1912(f) conditioned involuntary termination of parental rights on a showing regarding the merits of continued custody of the child by the parent. | 1 | 2026–2026 |
In re B.S.
green
2 sentences2025Id., citing In re B.S., 184 Ohio App. 3d 463 , 2009- Ohio-5497, at ¶ 63, 921 N.E.2d 320 . {¶ 46} Since there is no indication from V.P. that either she or L.W. has Native American heritage, we cannot find the lack of an ICWA inquiry caused a manifest miscarriage of justice or had a material, adverse effect on the proceedings. {¶ 47} Accordingly, we overrule V.P.’s second assignment of error. 2025Id., citing In re B.S., 184 Ohio App. 3d 463 , 2009- Ohio-5497, at ¶ 63, 921 N.E.2d 320 . {¶ 46} Since there is no indication from V.P. that either she or L.W. has Native American heritage, we cannot find the lack of an ICWA inquiry caused a manifest miscarriage of justice or had a material, adverse effect on the proceedings. {¶ 47} Accordingly, we overrule V.P.’s second assignment of error. | 1 | 2025–2025 |
Goldfuss v. Davidson
green
2 sentences2025The Fifth District Court of Appeals, in reviewing an appeal of a judgment granting a permanent custody motion where an ICWA inquiry was not completed, stated: No. 23AP-690 13 Civil plain error is to be recognized only in the exceptional case in which the error “seriously affects the basic fairness, integrity, or public reputation of the judicial process, thereby challenging the legitimacy of the underlying judicial process itself.” Goldfuss v. Davidson, 79 Ohio St.3d 116 , 1997- Ohio 401, 679 N.E.2d 1099 (1997), syllabus. 2025The Fifth District Court of Appeals, in reviewing an appeal of a judgment granting a permanent custody motion where an ICWA inquiry was not completed, stated: No. 23AP-690 13 Civil plain error is to be recognized only in the exceptional case in which the error “seriously affects the basic fairness, integrity, or public reputation of the judicial process, thereby challenging the legitimacy of the underlying judicial process itself.” Goldfuss v. Davidson, 79 Ohio St.3d 116 , 1997- Ohio 401, 679 N.E.2d 1099 (1997), syllabus. | 1 | 2025–2025 |
In re L.M.
green
1 sentence2025In In re L.M., 2024-Ohio-5549 (12th Dist.), the court of appeals found plain error and reversed a grant of permanent custody “[b]ecause there is no indication in the record that the juvenile court even attempted to make the necessary ICWA inquiry, and because there is no indication that Mother was ever put on notice of the potential for ICWA to apply.” Id. at ¶ 21. | 1 | 2025–2025 |
Anders v. California
green
2 sentences2024Mother’s possible issue for review is without merit. {¶13} This Court has also conducted an independent examination of the proceedings in accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and determined that there are no appealable issues in this case. 2024Mother’s possible issue for review is without merit. {¶13} This Court has also conducted an independent examination of the proceedings in accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and determined that there are no appealable issues in this case. | 1 | 2024–2024 |
In re A.C.
green
1 sentence2024See, e.g., In re A.G., 2017-Ohio-6892 (8th Dist.); In re N.H., 2016-Ohio-1547 (8th Dist.); In re: A.C., 2013-Ohio-1802 (8th Dist.); In re S.F., 2018-Ohio-2404, ¶ 19-22 (8th Dist.). -7- Warren CA2024-06-035 CA2024-06-042 there is any reason to believe the children involved in a custody proceeding are a member of or eligible for membership in an Indian tribe. | 1 | 2024–2024 |
In re C.C.
green
2 sentences2021For ICWA to apply to a child custody proceeding in state court, there must be a preliminary showing that the proceeding involves an "Indian child." In re C.C., 187 Ohio App.3d 365 , 2010-Ohio-780 , ¶ 4 (8th Dist.). 2021For ICWA to apply to a child custody proceeding in state court, there must be a preliminary showing that the proceeding involves an "Indian child." In re C.C., 187 Ohio App.3d 365 , 2010-Ohio-780 , ¶ 4 (8th Dist.). | 1 | 2021–2021 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.