custodian - Order. A. When a court order authorizes the emergency removal of an Indian child from the parent or Indian custodian of such child in accordance with 25 U.S.C. Section 1922, the order shall be accompanied by an affidavit containing the following information: 1. The names, tribal affiliations, and addresses of the Indian child, the parents of the Indian child and Indian custodians, if any; 2. A specific and detailed account of the circumstances that lead the agency responsible for the removal of the child to take that action; and 3. A statement of the specific actions that have been taken to assist the parents or Indian custodians so that the child may safely be returned to their custody. B. No pre-adjudicatory custody order shall remain in force or in effect for more than thirty (30) days without a determination by
the court, supported by clear and convincing evidence and the testimony of at least one qualified expert witness, that custody of the child by the parent or Indian custodian is likely to result in serious emotional or physical damage to the child. However, the court may, for good and sufficient cause shown, extend the effective period of such order for an additional period of sixty (60) days. Added by Laws 1982, c. 107, § 6, emerg. eff. April 6, 1982.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
5
cases, 1988–2015 · leading case:
Matter of NL, 754 P.2d 863 (Okla. 1988).
Matter of NL, 754 P.2d 863 (Okla. 1988).
· cites it 8× “She contends that the failure of the state to file an affidavit in conformity with 10 O.S.Supp. 1982 § 40.5, the absence of a hearing as provided by 10 O.”
Carney v. Moore, 754 P.2d 863 (Okla. 1988).
· cites it 8× “She contends that the failure of the state to file an affidavit in conformity with 10 O.S.Supp.1982 § 40.5, the absence of a hearing as provided by 10 O.”
Smith v. State, 315 P.3d 1030 (Okla. Civ. App. 2013).
“Pursuant to OICWA, 10 O.S.2011 § 40.5(A), the application for an order authorizing emergency removal shall be accompanied by an affidavit with certain information, f.”
In Re Adoption of RLA, 2006 OK CIV APP 138 (Okla. Civ. App. 2006).
“dian custodian is likely to result in serious emotional or physical damage" for a pre-adjudicatory custody order for the emergency removal of an Indian child from a parent or Indian custodian to remain in effect for more than thirty days, although such a pre-adjudicatory custody…”
In the Matter of Minor Child G.V., 2016 OK CIV APP 6 (Okla. Civ. App. 2015).
“5 OICWA does not have a state counterpart to § 1912(d), although 10 O.S. 2011 § 40.5 provides, in part, as follows: A.”
Okla. Stat. tit. 10, § 40.5(A): 3 cases
Matter of NL, 754 P.2d 863 (Okla. 1988).
“She contends that the failure of the state to file an affidavit in conformity with 10 O.S.Supp. 1982 § 40.5, the absence of a hearing as provided by 10 O.”
Carney v. Moore, 754 P.2d 863 (Okla. 1988).
“She contends that the failure of the state to file an affidavit in conformity with 10 O.S.Supp.1982 § 40.5, the absence of a hearing as provided by 10 O.”
Smith v. State, 315 P.3d 1030 (Okla. Civ. App. 2013).
“Pursuant to OICWA, 10 O.S.2011 § 40.5(A), the application for an order authorizing emergency removal shall be accompanied by an affidavit with certain information, f.”
Okla. Stat. tit. 10, § 40.5(B): 3 cases
Matter of NL, 754 P.2d 863 (Okla. 1988).
“She contends that the failure of the state to file an affidavit in conformity with 10 O.S.Supp. 1982 § 40.5, the absence of a hearing as provided by 10 O.”
Carney v. Moore, 754 P.2d 863 (Okla. 1988).
“She contends that the failure of the state to file an affidavit in conformity with 10 O.S.Supp.1982 § 40.5, the absence of a hearing as provided by 10 O.”
In Re Adoption of RLA, 2006 OK CIV APP 138 (Okla. Civ. App. 2006).
“dian custodian is likely to result in serious emotional or physical damage" for a pre-adjudicatory custody order for the emergency removal of an Indian child from a parent or Indian custodian to remain in effect for more than thirty days, although such a pre-adjudicatory custody…”
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.