25 C.F.R. § 23.1
Purpose
The purpose of the regulations in this part is to govern the provision of funding for, and the administration of Indian child and family service programs as authorized by the Indian Child Welfare Act of 1978 (Pub. L. 95-608, 92 Stat. 3069, 25 U.S.C. 2, 9, 1901-1952).
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 13
cases (4 in the last 5 years), 2005–2025 · leading case: Texas v. United States, 497 F.3d 491 (5th Cir. 2007).
Texas v. United States, 497 F.3d 491 (5th Cir. 2007). “1 (imposing grazing restrictions on tribal lands); 25 C.”
In Re Sb, 30 Cal. Rptr. 3d 726 (Cal. Ct. App. 2005). “) Third and finally, under the enforcement provision, on the petition of the Indian child, a parent from whose custody an Indian child has been removed, or the Indian child's tribe, "any court of competent jurisdiction" must invalidate any "action for foster care placement or…”
In the Interest of M.B., 176 P.3d 977 (Kan. Ct. App. 2008). “The ICWA’s requirements have been further implemented and interpreted by (1) federal regulations, 25 C.F.R. § 23.1 et seq. (2007), and (2) federal Guidelines for State Courts (Guidelines), 44 Fed.”
State of Alaska, DHSS, OCS v. C.A. (Mother) & B.R. (Father), State of Alaska, DHSS, OCS v. L.S. (Mother) & M.D. (Father), 513 P.3d 999 (Alaska 2022). “25 C.F.R. §§ 23.1 -.144 (2022); CINA Rule 1(f); Indian Child Welfare Act Proceedings, 81 Fed.”
Oliver N. v. Dep't of Health, 444 P.3d 171 (Alaska 2019). “38,778 , 38,779 (June 14, 2016) (final rule codified at 25 C.F.R. §§ 23.1 -.144 (2019) ). Id. at 38,782 (internal citation omitted).”
San Bernardino Cnty. Dep't of Child.'s Servs. v. Jeannie V., 2005 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 5906 (Cal. Ct. App. 2005). “) A host of subsidiary requirements have been adopted to implement, interpret, and enlarge upon this statutory language.”
In Re Mb, 176 P.3d 977 (Kan. Ct. App. 2008). “The ICWA's requirements have been further implemented and interpreted by (1) federal regulations, 25 C.F.R. § 23.1 et seq. (2007), and (2) federal Guidelines for State Courts (Guidelines), 44 Fed.”
In Re: N.r., A.r., & A.W. (W. Va. 2019). “38,778 (June 14, 2016); 25 C.F.R. §§ 23.1 to -23.144 (2016). 17 A definition of “active efforts” is now provided by 25 C.”
In Re A.E. ca1/2 (Cal. Ct. App. 2021). “5th 870 , 881–882; see 25 C.F.R. § 23.1 et seq.; Welf. & Inst. Code, § 224 et seq.”
State of West Virginia ex rel. The Delaware Tribe of Indians, Intervenor v. The Honorable Stacy Nowicki-Eldridge, Judge of the Circuit Court of Boone Cnty., K.A. & E.A., Intervenor & Prospective Kinship Placement of I.R., M.J.-1, & M.J.-2, Proposed Intervenors & Prospective Kinship Placement of I.R., B.D., Father of I.R., & I.R., Subject Child of the Petition Below (W. Va. 2023). “Guidelines for Implementing the Indian Child Welfare Act (“2016 Guidelines”), 25 C.F.R. §§ 23.1 to -23.144 (2016). The 2016 Guidelines state, in relevant part: In determining whether ICWA applies to a proceeding, the State court may not consider factors such as the participation…”
In Re R E Hanning Minor (Mich. Ct. App. 2025). “, and their attendant regulations, 25 CFR 23.1 et seq., and court rules, MCR 3.”
Julian F. (Father) v. State of Alaska, DHSS, OCS (Alaska 2019). “143 ; see also 25 C.F.R. §§ 23.1 -.144; Indian Child Welfare Act Proceedings, 81 Fed.”
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.