25 C.F.R. § 23.113

What are the standards for emergency proceedings involving an Indian child?

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

(a) Any emergency removal or placement of an Indian child under State law must terminate immediately when the removal or placement is no longer necessary to prevent imminent physical damage or harm to the child.

(b) The State court must:

(1) Make a finding on the record that the emergency removal or placement is necessary to prevent imminent physical damage or harm to the child;

(2) Promptly hold a hearing on whether the emergency removal or placement continues to be necessary whenever new information indicates that the emergency situation has ended; and

(3) At any court hearing during the emergency proceeding, determine whether the emergency removal or placement is no longer necessary to prevent imminent physical damage or harm to the child.

(4) Immediately terminate (or ensure that the agency immediately terminates) the emergency proceeding once the court or agency possesses sufficient evidence to determine that the emergency removal or placement is no longer necessary to prevent imminent physical damage or harm to the child.

(1) Initiation of a child-custody proceeding subject to the provisions of ICWA;

(2) Transfer of the child to the jurisdiction of the appropriate Indian Tribe; or

(3) Restoring the child to the parent or Indian custodian.

(d) A petition for a court order authorizing the emergency removal or continued emergency placement, or its accompanying documents, should contain a statement of the risk of imminent physical damage or harm to the Indian child and any evidence that the emergency removal or placement continues to be necessary to prevent such imminent physical damage or harm to the child. The petition or its accompanying documents should also contain the following information:

(1) The name, age, and last known address of the Indian child;

(2) The name and address of the child's parents and Indian custodians, if any;

(3) The steps taken to provide notice to the child's parents, custodians, and Tribe about the emergency proceeding;

(4) If the child's parents and Indian custodians are unknown, a detailed explanation of what efforts have been made to locate and contact them, including contact with the appropriate BIA Regional Director (see www.bia.gov);

(5) The residence and the domicile of the Indian child;

(6) If either the residence or the domicile of the Indian child is believed to be on a reservation or in an Alaska Native village, the name of the Tribe affiliated with that reservation or village;

(7) The Tribal affiliation of the child and of the parents or Indian custodians;

(8) A specific and detailed account of the circumstances that led the agency responsible for the emergency removal of the child to take that action;

(9) If the child is believed to reside or be domiciled on a reservation where the Tribe exercises exclusive jurisdiction over child-custody matters, a statement of efforts that have been made and are being made to contact the Tribe and transfer the child to the Tribe's jurisdiction; and

(10) A statement of the efforts that have been taken to assist the parents or Indian custodians so the Indian child may safely be returned to their custody.

(e) An emergency proceeding regarding an Indian child should not be continued for more than 30 days unless the court makes the following determinations:

(1) Restoring the child to the parent or Indian custodian would subject the child to imminent physical damage or harm;

(2) The court has been unable to transfer the proceeding to the jurisdiction of the appropriate Indian Tribe; and

(3) It has not been possible to initiate a “child-custody proceeding” as defined in § 23.2.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 10 cases (6 in the last 5 years), 2016–2025 · leading case: Dep't of Child Saf. v. Stocking-Tate, 446 P.3d 813 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2019).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Dep't of Child Saf. v. Stocking-Tate, 446 P.3d 813 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2019). “"); 25 C.F.R. § 23.113 (b)(3) (requiring the state court to continue to assess, as part of the emergency proceeding, whether continued temporary custody is necessary to protect the child from imminent harm).”

Oglala Sioux Tribe v. Fleming, 220 F. Supp. 3d 986 (D.S.D. 2016). “” 25 C.F.R. § 23.113 (c) (December 12, 2016).”

In re Samantha F. (Cal. Ct. App. 2024). · cites it 6× “) While federal regulations enumerate 10 items that should be alleged in a petition for emergency removal of an Indian child, a list substantially adopted by our Legislature ( 25 C.F.R. § 23.113 (d) (2023); § 319, subd.”

In re D.M. (Cal. Ct. App. 2024). · cites it 4× “(25 C.F.R. 23.113 (2023).) The requirements for a “petition for a court order authorizing the emergency removal or continued emergency placement” became (with small changes) part of our law governing a detention hearing involving an Indian child.”

In Re H Wardia Minor (Mich. Ct. App. 2022). · cites it 3× “” 4 Incidentally, while not necessary to resolve this appeal, 25 CFR 23.113 governs emergency proceedings involving an Indian child.”

Dcs v. Hon. stocking-tate/mark R. (Ariz. Ct. App. 2019). “”); 25 C.F.R. § 23.113 (b)(3) (requiring the state court to continue to assess, as part of the emergency proceeding, whether continued temporary custody is necessary to protect the child from imminent harm).”

Dependency Of: Z.j.g. 9/3/16, Scott James Greer v. Dshs (Wash. Ct. App. 2019). “§ 1922 , and 25 C.F.R. § 23.113 . ll9~~ DESKBOOK, supra, at 915 (“[P]reliminary protective hearings held in many dependency or child-in-need-of-care proceedings may be ‘emergency proceedings’ under ICWA and therefore are not subject to many of ICWA’s procedural requirements,…”

In re Delila D. (Cal. Ct. App. 2023). “” ( 25 C.F.R. § 23.113 (b).) The regulations also extended the court’s initial inquiry obligation to emergency proceedings.”

In re C.L. (Cal. Ct. App. 2023). “” ( 25 C.F.R. §§ 23.113 , 23.2.) Robert F. insists the Legislature understood the distinction between emergency removals and other removals because “[s]ection 306 declares that removal of an Indian child under that section ‘ “shall be considered an emergency 11 removal under”…”

Peo in Interest of JM (Colo. Ct. App. 2025). “§§ 1912 (e), 1922; 25 C.F.R. § 23.113 (a). ¶ 19 But as discussed, the court did not have “reason to know” the children were Indian children based on mother’s general assertions of Native heritage.”

— 25 C.F.R. § 23.113(b)(1) — 2 cases

In Re H Wardia Minor (Mich. Ct. App. 2022). “” 4 Incidentally, while not necessary to resolve this appeal, 25 CFR 23.113 governs emergency proceedings involving an Indian child.”

In re D.M. (Cal. Ct. App. 2024). “(25 C.F.R. 23.113 (2023).) The requirements for a “petition for a court order authorizing the emergency removal or continued emergency placement” became (with small changes) part of our law governing a detention hearing involving an Indian child.”

— 25 C.F.R. § 23.113(d)(1) — 1 case

— 25 C.F.R. § 23.113(e)(1) — 1 case

In Re H Wardia Minor (Mich. Ct. App. 2022). “” 4 Incidentally, while not necessary to resolve this appeal, 25 CFR 23.113 governs emergency proceedings involving an Indian child.”

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.