C.F.R. » Title 25 » CHAPTER I—BUREAU OF INDIAN AFFAIRS, DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR › SUBCHAPTER D—HUMAN SERVICES › PART 23—INDIAN CHILD WELFARE ACT › Subpart I—Indian Child Welfare Act Proceedings

25 C.F.R. § 23.107

How should a State court determine if there is reason to know the child is an Indian child?

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

(a) State courts must ask each participant in an emergency or voluntary or involuntary child-custody proceeding whether the participant knows or has reason to know that the child is an Indian child. The inquiry is made at the commencement of the proceeding and all responses should be on the record. State 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.

(b) If there is reason to know the child is an Indian child, but the court does not have sufficient evidence to determine that the child is or is not an “Indian child,” the court must:

(1) Confirm, by way of a report, declaration, or testimony included in the record that the agency or other party used due diligence to identify and work with all of the Tribes of which there is reason to know the child may be a member (or eligible for membership), to verify whether the child is in fact a member (or a biological parent is a member and the child is eligible for membership); and

(2) Treat the child as an Indian child, unless and until it is determined on the record that the child does not meet the definition of an “Indian child” in this part.

(c) A court, upon conducting the inquiry required in paragraph (a) of this section, has reason to know that a child involved in an emergency or child-custody proceeding is an Indian child if:

(1) Any participant in the proceeding, officer of the court involved in the proceeding, Indian Tribe, Indian organization, or agency informs the court that the child is an Indian child;

(2) Any participant in the proceeding, officer of the court involved in the proceeding, Indian Tribe, Indian organization, or agency informs the court that it has discovered information indicating that the child is an Indian child;

(3) The child who is the subject of the proceeding gives the court reason to know he or she is an Indian child;

(4) The court is informed that the domicile or residence of the child, the child's parent, or the child's Indian custodian is on a reservation or in an Alaska Native village;

(5) The court is informed that the child is or has been a ward of a Tribal court; or

(6) The court is informed that either parent or the child possesses an identification card indicating membership in an Indian Tribe.

(d) In seeking verification of the child's status in a voluntary proceeding where a consenting parent evidences, by written request or statement in the record, a desire for anonymity, the court must keep relevant documents pertaining to the inquiry required under this section confidential and under seal. A request for anonymity does not relieve the court, agency, or other party from any duty of compliance with ICWA, including the obligation to verify whether the child is an “Indian child.” A Tribe receiving information related to this inquiry must keep documents and information confidential.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 397 cases (340 in the last 5 years), 2017–2026 · leading case: in the Interest of S.B, 2020 COA 5 (Colo. Ct. App. 2020).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
in the Interest of S.B, 2020 COA 5 (Colo. Ct. App. 2020). · cites it 4× “25 C.F.R. § 23.107 (a) (2019); Bureau of Indian Affairs, Guidelines for Implementing the Indian Child Welfare Act (Dec.”
Jocelyn Lee Geouge v. Jason Barry Traylor, Dustin Griffith & Tiffany Vadella-Griffith, 808 S.E.2d 541 (Va. Ct. App. 2017). · cites it 7× “Specifically, 25 C.F.R. § 23.107 (a) requires that a state court ask each participant in a[] .”
In re S.R., 436 P.3d 696 (Mont. 2019). · cites it 20× “" 25 C.F.R. § 23.107 (a). 11 See also *703 25 U.”
In re D.E., 2021 Ohio 524 (Ohio Ct. App. 2021). · cites it 10× “) {¶ 55} 25 C.F.R. 23.107 explains the obligation of a state court to inquire of each participant in a child custody proceeding whether the participant knows or has reason to know the child is an Indian child.”
In re Dependency of Z.J.G., 471 P.3d 853 (Wash. 2020). · cites it 8× “070(1); 25 C.F.R. § 23.107 (b)(2). The “reason to know” finding performs a critical gatekeeping function.”
People ex rel. L.L., 395 P.3d 1209 (Colo. Ct. App. 2017). · cites it 12× “25 C.F.R. § 23.107 (2016). a. Initial Inquiry ¶ 19 The juvenile court must first ask each participant on the record at the commencement of every emergency, voluntary, or involuntary child-custody proceeding “whether the participant knows or has reason to know that the child is…”
in Interest of L.M, 2018 COA 57 (Colo. Ct. App. 2018). “25 C.F.R. § 23.107 (a) (2017); see also L.”
H.J.B. v. A - J.A.B. Judgment Affirmed Just. Berkenkotter Delivered the Opinion of the Court, in Which Chief Just. Boatright Just. MÁrquez Just. Hood Just. Gabriel Just. Hart, 2023 CO 48 (Colo. 2023). · cites it 4× “I, ¶ 10, 511 P.3d at 754. But the division concluded that there can be circumstances—like those here—where the 10 court “receives information that the child may have Indian heritage but does not have sufficient information to determine that there is reason to know that the child…”
Jimmy E. v. State of Alaska, Dep't of Health & Soc. Servs., Off. of Child.'s Servs., Allie P. v. State of Alaska, Dep't of Health & Soc. Servs., Off. of Child.'s Servs., 529 P.3d 504 (Alaska 2023). · cites it 5× “15 25 C.F.R. § 23.107 (a). 16 Id. 17 Id. § 23.”
The People of the State of Colorado, In the Interest of Minor Child. My. K.M. & Ma. K.M., V. K.L. & T.A.M., 2022 CO 35 (Colo. 2022). “On November 6, 2019, based on the Tribe's position, the juvenile court held that there was at least "reason to know," 25 C.F.R. § 23.107 (a) (2021), the children may be Indian children for ICWA purposes.”
People in Interest of M.V, 2018 COA 163 (Colo. Ct. App. 2018). “19 25 C.F.R. § 23.107 (c). State courts and agencies are encouraged to interpret these factors expansively.”
In re: A.P., 818 S.E.2d 396 (N.C. Ct. App. 2018). · cites it 5× “was born in August 2015, while Respondent was living at the Church of God Children's Home (the "Home"), located in Cabarrus County. Shortly after A.P.'s birth, Respondent began to display irrational behaviors.”
Show all 397 citing cases →
— 25 C.F.R. § 23.107(a) — 24 cases
In re L.M., 2024 Ohio 5549 (Ohio Ct. App. 2024).
In re D.E., 2021 Ohio 524 (Ohio Ct. App. 2021). “) {¶ 55} 25 C.F.R. 23.107 explains the obligation of a state court to inquire of each participant in a child custody proceeding whether the participant knows or has reason to know the child is an Indian child.”
In re S.M., 2025 Ohio 34 (Ohio Ct. App. 2025).
In re E.C., 2020 Ohio 3807 (Ohio Ct. App. 2020).
In re K.Y., 2025 Ohio 1117 (Ohio Ct. App. 2025).
— 25 C.F.R. § 23.107(b) — 4 cases
In re D.E., 2021 Ohio 524 (Ohio Ct. App. 2021). “) {¶ 55} 25 C.F.R. 23.107 explains the obligation of a state court to inquire of each participant in a child custody proceeding whether the participant knows or has reason to know the child is an Indian child.”
In re E.C., 2020 Ohio 3807 (Ohio Ct. App. 2020).
In Re J Brandon Minor (Mich. Ct. App. 2026).
In the Matter of J.W.E., 2018 OK CIV APP 29 (Okla. Civ. App. 2018).
— 25 C.F.R. § 23.107(b)(1) — 2 cases
State ex rel. CYFD v. Tanisha G. (N.M. Ct. App. 2019).
in the Interest of Z.C, 2019 COA 71 (Colo. Ct. App. 2019).
— 25 C.F.R. § 23.107(b)(2) — 3 cases
In Re H Wardia Minor (Mich. Ct. App. 2022).
In Re epps/jackson Minors (Mich. Ct. App. 2023).
In the Matter of J.W.E., 2018 OK CIV APP 29 (Okla. Civ. App. 2018).
— 25 C.F.R. § 23.107(c) — 7 cases
In re D.E., 2021 Ohio 524 (Ohio Ct. App. 2021). “) {¶ 55} 25 C.F.R. 23.107 explains the obligation of a state court to inquire of each participant in a child custody proceeding whether the participant knows or has reason to know the child is an Indian child.”
In re E.C., 2020 Ohio 3807 (Ohio Ct. App. 2020).
Dcpp Vs. A.b.g., A.k.h., & T.s., in the Matter of the Guardianship of A.h., E.l.g., & M.N.G. (fg-07-0244-15, Essex Cnty. & Statewide) (record Impounded) (Consol.) (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 2019).
In re A.L. (N.C. 2021).
In Re P.K. ca4/2 (Cal. Ct. App. 2022).
— 25 C.F.R. § 23.107(c)(1) — 1 case
Matters of L.C., X.P. & N.C., YINC, 2026 MT 121 (Mont. 2026).
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.