25 C.F.R. § 13.12

Criteria for approval of reassumption petitions

Read at: eCFRecfr.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov CasesGoogle Scholar

(a) The Assistant Secretary—Indian Affairs shall approve a tribal petition to reassume jurisdiction over Indian child custody matters if:

(1) Any reservation, as defined in 25 U.S.C. 1903(10), presently affected by the petition is presently occupied by the petitioning tribe or tribes;

(2) The constitution or other governing document, if any, of the petitioning tribe or tribes authorizes the tribal governing body or bodies to exercise jurisdiction over Indian child custody matters;

(3) The information and documents required by § 13.11 of this part have been provided;

(4) A tribal court, as defined in 25 U.S.C. 1903(12), has been established or will be established before reassumption and that tribal court will be able to exercise jurisdiction over Indian child custody matters in a manner that meets the requirements of the Indian Civil Rights Act, 25 U.S.C. 1302;

(5) Child care services sufficient to meet the needs of most children the tribal court finds must be removed from parental custody are available or will be available at the time of reassumption of jurisdiction; and

(6) The tribe or tribes have established a procedure for clearly identifying persons who will be subject to the jurisdiction of the tribe or tribes upon reassumption of jurisdiction.

(b) If the technical assistance provided by the Bureau to the tribe to correct any deficiency which the Assistant Secretary—Indian Affairs has identified as a basis for disapproving a petition for reassumption of exclusive jurisdiction has proved unsuccessful in eliminating entirely such problem, the Bureau, at the request of the tribe, shall assist the tribe to assert whatever partial jurisdiction as provided in 25 U.S.C. 1918(b) that is feasible and desired by the tribe. In the alternative, the Bureau, if requested by the concerned tribe, shall assist the tribe to enter into agreements with a state or states regarding the care and custody of Indian children and jurisdiction over Indian child custody proceedings, including agreements which may provide for the orderly transfer of jurisdiction to the tribe on a case-by-case basis or agreements which provide for concurrent jurisdiction between the state and the Indian tribe.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 3 cases, 1988–2005 · leading case: Doe v. Mann, 285 F. Supp. 2d 1229 (N.D. Cal. 2003).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Doe v. Mann, 285 F. Supp. 2d 1229 (N.D. Cal. 2003). “” 25 C.F.R. § 13.12 . Requiring tribes to petition the Secretary of Interior for reassumption over the few child custody proceedings that could be understood as private civil actions, such as private adoptions, is illogical if the tribes already have jurisdiction over most of…”

Native Vill. of Venetie I.R.A. Council v. Alaska, 687 F. Supp. 1380 (D. Alaska 1988). “25 C.F.R. § 13.12 (a). This criterion is critical because, as explained above, tribal courts are generally not bound by the United States Constitution, and under Santa Clara Pueblo , persons aggrieved by their actions generally have no remedy except challenges to their…”

Doe v. Mann, 415 F.3d 1038 (9th Cir. 2005). · cites it 2× “§§ 1918 (a), (b); 25 C.F.R. § 13.12 . Absent an attempt to follow that protocol, howev *1062 er, Public Law 280 states may exercise jurisdiction over child custody proceedings.”

Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.