Mich. Comp. Laws » Michigan Compiled Laws / Chapter 712B / Act 288 of 1939
Michigan Compiled Laws

Mich. Comp. Laws § 712B.9 (2026)

Child custody proceeding; notification to parent, Indian custodian, and tribe; additional preparation days; suspension of proceedings; prejudice by lack of notice; determination as to which tribe child is member; circumstances leading to belief child is an Indian; determining, documenting, and contacting extended family; determination or testimony by authorized person; documentation of efforts.

✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section MI-LEGlegislature.mi.gov JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

PROBATE CODE OF 1939


Act 288 of 1939


712B.9 Child custody proceeding; notification to parent, Indian custodian, and tribe; additional preparation days; suspension of proceedings; prejudice by lack of notice; determination as to which tribe child is member; circumstances leading to belief child is an Indian; determining, documenting, and contacting extended family; determination or testimony by authorized person; documentation of efforts.

Sec. 9.

    (1) In a child custody proceeding, if the court knows or has reason to know that an Indian child is involved, the petitioner shall notify the parent or Indian custodian and the Indian child's tribe, by registered mail with return receipt requested, of the pending child custody proceeding and of the right to intervene. If the identity or location of the parent or Indian custodian and the tribe cannot be determined, notice shall be given to the secretary in the same manner described in this subsection. The secretary has 15 days after receipt of notice to provide the requisite notice to the parent or Indian custodian and the tribe.

    (2) No foster care placement or termination of parental rights proceeding shall be held until at least 10 days after receipt of notice by the parent or Indian custodian and the tribe or the secretary. The parent or Indian custodian or the tribe shall, upon request, be granted up to 20 additional days to prepare for the proceeding. If the petitioner or court later discovers that the child may be an Indian child, all further proceedings shall be suspended until notice is received by the tribe or the secretary as set forth in this subsection. If the court determines after a hearing that the parent or tribe was prejudiced by lack of notice, the prior decisions made by the court shall be vacated and the case shall proceed from the first hearing. The petitioner has the burden of proving lack of prejudice.

    (3) The department shall actively seek to determine whether a child at initial contact is an Indian child. If the department is able to make an initial determination as to which Indian tribe or tribes a child brought to its attention may be a member, the department shall exercise due diligence to contact the Indian tribe or tribes in writing so that the tribe may verify membership or eligibility for membership. If the department is unable to make an initial determination as to which tribe or tribes a child may be a member, the department shall, at a minimum, contact in writing the tribe or tribes located in the county where the child is located and the secretary.

    (4) Circumstances under which a court, the department, or other party to a child custody proceeding has reason to believe a child involved in a child custody proceeding is an Indian include, but are not limited to, any of the following:

    (a) Any party to the case, Indian tribe, Indian organization, or public or private agency informs the court that the child is an Indian child.

    (b) Any public or state-licensed agency involved in child protection services or family support has discovered information that suggests that the child is an Indian child.

    (c) The child who is the subject of the proceeding gives the court reason to believe he or she is an Indian child.

    (d) The residence or the domicile of the child, his or her biological parents, or the Indian custodian is known by the court to be or is shown to be a predominantly Indian community.

    (e) An officer of the court involved in the proceeding has knowledge that the child may be an Indian child.

    (5) The department shall exercise due diligence to determine, document, and contact the Indian child's extended family members in accordance with the fostering connections to success and increasing adoptions act of 2008, Public Law 110-351. If applicable, determinations and documentation should be conducted in consultation with the child or parent's tribe.

    (6) A written determination or oral testimony by a person authorized by the Indian tribe to speak on its behalf, regarding a child's membership or eligibility for membership in a tribe, is conclusive as to that tribe.

    (7) The petitioner shall document all efforts made to determine a child's membership or eligibility for membership in an Indian tribe and shall provide them, upon request, to the court, Indian tribe, Indian child, Indian child's lawyer-guardian ad litem, parent, or Indian custodian.

History: Add. 2012, Act 565, Imd. Eff. Jan. 2, 2013

PopularName Notes:

Probate Code
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 31 cases (21 in the last 5 years), 2015–2026 · leading case: In re Jones, 894 N.W.2d 54 (Mich. Ct. App. 2016).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
In re Jones, 894 N.W.2d 54 (Mich. Ct. App. 2016). · cites it 16× “[MCL 712B.9(1) (emphasis added).] In the MIFPA, the Legislature expressly set forth a nonexclusive list of circumstances that trigger the notification mandate found in MCL 712B.”
in Re jones/lehmann Minors (Mich. Ct. App. 2016). · cites it 15× “] In the MIFPA, the Legislature expressly set forth a nonexclusive list of circumstances that effectively trigger the notification mandate found in subsection (1), providing in subsection (4) of MCL 712B.9: Circumstances under which a court, the department, or other party to a…”
In Re E M Berry Minor (Mich. Ct. App. 2025). · cites it 9× “ICWA defines an Indian child as “any unmarried person who is under age eighteen and is either (a) a member of an Indian tribe or (b) is eligible for membership in an Indian tribe and is the biological child of a member of an Indian tribe[.”
In Re S Goodloe Minor (Mich. Ct. App. 2026). · cites it 9× “25 USC 1912(a); MCL 712B.9(1). If it cannot determine to which tribe the child may be a member, then MIFPA requires the Department to contact in writing any tribe located within the county where the child is located.”
In Re M Ahanu Minor (Mich. Ct. App. 2025). · cites it 7× “The trial court also mentioned that it had a note that a previous child protective proceeding determined that respondent’s older child was not Indian; however, MCL 712B.9 does not indicate that the trial court or agency may rely on previous inquiries to satisfy notification and…”
In Re H Wardia Minor (Mich. Ct. App. 2022). · cites it 3× “3(k), requires notice to the BIA, see MCL 712B.9, and provides that “[a]n Indian child may be removed from a parent or Indian custodian .”
In Re Burger Minors (Mich. Ct. App. 2023). · cites it 3× “9 imposes a duty on both the trial court and DHHS to determine whether a child qualifies for treatment under ICWA and MIFPA in child- protection proceedings: (1) In a child custody proceeding,[2] if the court knows or has reason to know that an Indian child is involved, the…”
In Re epps/jackson Minors (Mich. Ct. App. 2023). · cites it 3× “3(k), mandates notice to the Bureau of Indian Affairs (“BIA”) under MCL 712B.9, and provides “[a]n Indian child may be removed from a parent or Indian custodian only upon clear and convincing evidence that .”
In Re R M Wendzel Minor (Mich. Ct. App. 2026). · cites it 3× “See 25 USC 1912(a); MCL 712B.9(1). In other words, there is no requirement that a specific tribe be named in order to trigger the notice requirements of ICWA and MIFPA.”
in Re a C Hawkins Minor (Mich. Ct. App. 2016). · cites it 2× “, and the Michigan Indian Family Preservation Act, MCL 712B.9. We disagree. A. STANDARD OF REVIEW Generally, “[i]ssues involving the application and interpretation of [the] ICWA are questions of law that are reviewed de novo,” and “[a] court’s factual findings underlying the…”
in Re C Applewhiate Jr Minor (Mich. Ct. App. 2017). · cites it 2× “[25 USC 1912(a); see also MCL 712B.9(1)2 (the corresponding notice provision in MIFPA).”
in Re montgomery/crawford Minors (Mich. Ct. App. 2017). · cites it 2× “[MCL 712B.9(1).] As set forth in MIFPA, among other circumstances, there is reason to know an Indian child is involved when the DHHS “has discovered information that suggests that the child is an Indian child,” and where “[a]n officer of the court involved in the proceeding has…”
Show all 31 citing cases →
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 712B.9(1) — 23 cases
In re Jones, 894 N.W.2d 54 (Mich. Ct. App. 2016). “[MCL 712B.9(1) (emphasis added).] In the MIFPA, the Legislature expressly set forth a nonexclusive list of circumstances that trigger the notification mandate found in MCL 712B.”
in Re jones/lehmann Minors (Mich. Ct. App. 2016). “] In the MIFPA, the Legislature expressly set forth a nonexclusive list of circumstances that effectively trigger the notification mandate found in subsection (1), providing in subsection (4) of MCL 712B.9: Circumstances under which a court, the department, or other party to a…”
in Re C Applewhiate Jr Minor (Mich. Ct. App. 2017). “[25 USC 1912(a); see also MCL 712B.9(1)2 (the corresponding notice provision in MIFPA).”
In Re M B Miettinen Minor (Mich. Ct. App. 2023).
D in Re peters/brinton/mathews Minors (Mich. Ct. App. 2024).
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 712B.9(2) — 5 cases
In Re S Goodloe Minor (Mich. Ct. App. 2026). “25 USC 1912(a); MCL 712B.9(1). If it cannot determine to which tribe the child may be a member, then MIFPA requires the Department to contact in writing any tribe located within the county where the child is located.”
In Re B M Smith Minor (Mich. Ct. App. 2022).
In Re B M Smith Minor (Mich. Ct. App. 2022).
In Re M Ahanu Minor (Mich. Ct. App. 2025). “The trial court also mentioned that it had a note that a previous child protective proceeding determined that respondent’s older child was not Indian; however, MCL 712B.9 does not indicate that the trial court or agency may rely on previous inquiries to satisfy notification and…”
In Re L a Ledee Minor (Mich. Ct. App. 2026).
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 712B.9(3) — 7 cases
In re Jones, 894 N.W.2d 54 (Mich. Ct. App. 2016). “[MCL 712B.9(1) (emphasis added).] In the MIFPA, the Legislature expressly set forth a nonexclusive list of circumstances that trigger the notification mandate found in MCL 712B.”
in Re jones/lehmann Minors (Mich. Ct. App. 2016). “] In the MIFPA, the Legislature expressly set forth a nonexclusive list of circumstances that effectively trigger the notification mandate found in subsection (1), providing in subsection (4) of MCL 712B.9: Circumstances under which a court, the department, or other party to a…”
In Re E M Berry Minor (Mich. Ct. App. 2025). “ICWA defines an Indian child as “any unmarried person who is under age eighteen and is either (a) a member of an Indian tribe or (b) is eligible for membership in an Indian tribe and is the biological child of a member of an Indian tribe[.”
20230126_C362643_19_362643.Opn.Ord.Pdf (Mich. Ct. App. 2023).
In Re S Goodloe Minor (Mich. Ct. App. 2026). “25 USC 1912(a); MCL 712B.9(1). If it cannot determine to which tribe the child may be a member, then MIFPA requires the Department to contact in writing any tribe located within the county where the child is located.”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 712B.9(4) — 2 cases
In re Jones, 894 N.W.2d 54 (Mich. Ct. App. 2016). “[MCL 712B.9(1) (emphasis added).] In the MIFPA, the Legislature expressly set forth a nonexclusive list of circumstances that trigger the notification mandate found in MCL 712B.”
In Re R E Hanning Minor (Mich. Ct. App. 2025).
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 712B.9(4)(a) — 4 cases
In Re M Ahanu Minor (Mich. Ct. App. 2025). “The trial court also mentioned that it had a note that a previous child protective proceeding determined that respondent’s older child was not Indian; however, MCL 712B.9 does not indicate that the trial court or agency may rely on previous inquiries to satisfy notification and…”
In Re E M Berry Minor (Mich. Ct. App. 2025). “ICWA defines an Indian child as “any unmarried person who is under age eighteen and is either (a) a member of an Indian tribe or (b) is eligible for membership in an Indian tribe and is the biological child of a member of an Indian tribe[.”
In Re Burger Minors (Mich. Ct. App. 2023). “9 imposes a duty on both the trial court and DHHS to determine whether a child qualifies for treatment under ICWA and MIFPA in child- protection proceedings: (1) In a child custody proceeding,[2] if the court knows or has reason to know that an Indian child is involved, the…”
In Re S Goodloe Minor (Mich. Ct. App. 2026). “25 USC 1912(a); MCL 712B.9(1). If it cannot determine to which tribe the child may be a member, then MIFPA requires the Department to contact in writing any tribe located within the county where the child is located.”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 712B.9(4)(b) — 4 cases
In re Jones, 894 N.W.2d 54 (Mich. Ct. App. 2016). “[MCL 712B.9(1) (emphasis added).] In the MIFPA, the Legislature expressly set forth a nonexclusive list of circumstances that trigger the notification mandate found in MCL 712B.”
in Re jones/lehmann Minors (Mich. Ct. App. 2016). “] In the MIFPA, the Legislature expressly set forth a nonexclusive list of circumstances that effectively trigger the notification mandate found in subsection (1), providing in subsection (4) of MCL 712B.9: Circumstances under which a court, the department, or other party to a…”
in Re montgomery/crawford Minors (Mich. Ct. App. 2017). “[MCL 712B.9(1).] As set forth in MIFPA, among other circumstances, there is reason to know an Indian child is involved when the DHHS “has discovered information that suggests that the child is an Indian child,” and where “[a]n officer of the court involved in the proceeding has…”
in Re montgomery/crawford Minors (Mich. Ct. App. 2017).
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 712B.9(4)(e) — 3 cases
In re Jones, 894 N.W.2d 54 (Mich. Ct. App. 2016). “[MCL 712B.9(1) (emphasis added).] In the MIFPA, the Legislature expressly set forth a nonexclusive list of circumstances that trigger the notification mandate found in MCL 712B.”
In Re R M Wendzel Minor (Mich. Ct. App. 2026). “See 25 USC 1912(a); MCL 712B.9(1). In other words, there is no requirement that a specific tribe be named in order to trigger the notice requirements of ICWA and MIFPA.”
in Re jones/lehmann Minors (Mich. Ct. App. 2016). “] In the MIFPA, the Legislature expressly set forth a nonexclusive list of circumstances that effectively trigger the notification mandate found in subsection (1), providing in subsection (4) of MCL 712B.9: Circumstances under which a court, the department, or other party to a…”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 712B.9(6) — 2 cases
In Re M Ahanu Minor (Mich. Ct. App. 2025). “The trial court also mentioned that it had a note that a previous child protective proceeding determined that respondent’s older child was not Indian; however, MCL 712B.9 does not indicate that the trial court or agency may rely on previous inquiries to satisfy notification and…”
In Re E M Berry Minor (Mich. Ct. App. 2025). “ICWA defines an Indian child as “any unmarried person who is under age eighteen and is either (a) a member of an Indian tribe or (b) is eligible for membership in an Indian tribe and is the biological child of a member of an Indian tribe[.”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 712B.9(7) — 3 cases
In Re Burger Minors (Mich. Ct. App. 2023). “9 imposes a duty on both the trial court and DHHS to determine whether a child qualifies for treatment under ICWA and MIFPA in child- protection proceedings: (1) In a child custody proceeding,[2] if the court knows or has reason to know that an Indian child is involved, the…”
In Re M Ahanu Minor (Mich. Ct. App. 2025). “The trial court also mentioned that it had a note that a previous child protective proceeding determined that respondent’s older child was not Indian; however, MCL 712B.9 does not indicate that the trial court or agency may rely on previous inquiries to satisfy notification and…”
In Re S Goodloe Minor (Mich. Ct. App. 2026). “25 USC 1912(a); MCL 712B.9(1). If it cannot determine to which tribe the child may be a member, then MIFPA requires the Department to contact in writing any tribe located within the county where the child is located.”
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.