25 C.F.R. § 23.3

Policy

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

In enacting the Indian Child Welfare Act of 1978, Pub. L. 95-608, the Congress has declared that it is the policy of this Nation to protect the best interests of Indian children and to promote the stability and security of Indian tribes and Indian families by the establishment of minimum Federal standards to prevent the arbitrary removal of Indian children from their families and tribes and to ensure that measures which prevent the breakup of Indian families are followed in child custody proceedings (25 U.S.C. 1902). Indian child and family service programs receiving title II funds and operated by federally recognized Indian tribes and off-reservation Indian organizations shall reflect the unique values of Indian culture and promote the stability and security of Indian children, Indian families and Indian communities. It is the policy of the Bureau of Indian Affairs to emphasize and facilitate the comprehensive design, development and implementation of Indian child and family service programs in coordination with other Federal, state, local, and tribal programs which strengthen and preserve Indian families and Indian tribes.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 7 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1994–2021 · leading case: In re D.E., 2021 Ohio 524 (Ohio Ct. App. 2021).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

In re D.E., 2021 Ohio 524 (Ohio Ct. App. 2021). “See 25 C.F.R. 23.3. The Supreme Court of the United States has stated that "canons of construction applicable in Indian law are rooted in the unique trust relationship between the United States and the Indians" and that "[s]tatutes are to be construed liberally in favor of the…”

Quinn v. Walters, 881 P.2d 795 (Or. 1994). · cites it 2× “See also 25 CFR § 23.3 (policy of the ICWA is to “prevent the arbitrary removal of Indian children from their families and tribes and to ensure *255 that measures which prevent the breakup of Indian families are followed in child custody proceedings”).”

Gaddie v. K.S.D., 904 N.W.2d 479 (N.D. 2017). “•§ 1902; 25 C.F.R. § 23.3 . In furtherance of this legislative purpose, ICWA imposes certain evidentiary burdens and requirements on state court proceedings, including: Prior to ordering an involuntary foster-carb placement or termination of parental rights, the court must…”

In re S.R., 436 P.3d 696 (Mont. 2019). “§ 1902 ; 25 C.F.R. § 23.3 . In furtherance of this clearly stated federal policy, ICWA imposes heightened federal standards for the removal of Indian children from Indian families.”

In Re Jb, 178 Cal. App. 4th 751 (Cal. Ct. App. 2009). “§ 1902 , italics added; see 25 C.F.R. § 23.3 (2009).) Following suit, the California Legislature declared that "[t]he state is committed to protecting the essential tribal relations and best interest of an Indian child by promoting practices, in accordance with [ICWA] ( 25 U.”

V.D. v. State, Dep't of Health & Soc. Servs., 991 P.2d 214 (Alaska 1999). “…20 . See 25 U.S.C. § 1912 (b) (1994). 21 . See CINA Rule 10(e) (providing for review pending adjudication). 22 . See 25 C.F.R. § 23.3 (1999).”

Stanislaus Cnty. Cmty. Servs. Agency v. R.S.C., 178 Cal. App. 4th 751 (Cal. Ct. App. 2009). “§ 1902 , italics added; see 25 C.F.R. § 23.3 (2009).) Following suit, the California Legislature declared that “[t]he state is committed to protecting the essential tribal relations and best interest of an Indian child by promoting practices, in accordance with [ICWA] ( 25 U.”

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.