25 U.S.C. § 1902
Congressional declaration of policy
The Congress hereby declares 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 families by the establishment of minimum Federal standards for the removal of Indian children from their families and the placement of such children in foster or adoptive homes which will reflect the unique values of Indian culture, and by providing for assistance to Indian tribes in the operation of child and family service programs.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 867
cases (299 in the last 5 years), 1981–2026 · leading case: Jon S. v. State, Dep't of Health & Soc. Servs., Off. of Child.'s Servs., 212 P.3d 756 (Alaska 2009).
Jon S. v. State, Dep't of Health & Soc. Servs., Off. of Child.'s Servs., 212 P.3d 756 (Alaska 2009). “[1] 25 U.S.C. § 1902 (2006); see also A.B.M. v.”
Brackeen v. Haaland, 994 F.3d 249 (5th Cir. 2021). “An inquiry into ICWA’s individual provisions, moreover, reveals that they operate to confer rights on private actors.”
Sacramento Cnty. Dep't of Health & Human Servs. v. Joseph A., 375 P.3d 879 (Cal. 2016). “” ( 25 U.S.C. § 1902 .) In any given case, ICWA applies or not depending on whether the child who is the subject of the custody proceeding is an Indian child.”
In the Matter of M.K.T., 2016 OK 4 (Okla. 2016). “3d at 1103, quoting 25 U.S.C.A. § 1902. 7 10 O.S.2011 § 40.1, states in part: "The purpose of the Oklahoma Indian Child Welfare Act is the clarification of state policies and procedures regarding the implementation by the State of Oklahoma of the federal Indian Child Welfare…”
Adoption B.B. v. R.K.B., 2017 UT 59 (Utah 2017). “25 U.S.C. § 1902 . ¶ 62 The dissent provides no support for its assertion that 25 U.”
In Re the Adoption of T.N.F., 781 P.2d 973 (Alaska 1989). “25 U.S.C. § 1902 (Supp. 1987). Several of the cases the F.”
In re Guardianship of Eliza W., 304 Neb. 995 (Neb. 2020). “In particular, she refers us to 25 U.S.C. § 1902 (2012), which provides in part: [I]t is the policy of this Nation to protect the best inter- ests of Indian children and to promote the stability and security of Indian tribes and families by the establishment - 1004 - Nebraska…”
Linda H. v. Tyler R. (In Re Micah H.), 301 Neb. 437 (Neb. 2018). “22 25 U.S.C. § 1902 . 23 § 43-1502. 24 See §§ 43-1504 and 43-1505.”
R.B. v. C.W., 383 P.3d 492 (Wash. 2016). “25 U.S.C. § 1902 . ¶25 Among other requirements, ICWA demands a higher burden of proof before the trial court may terminate the relationship between an Indian child and his parent.”
Los Angeles Cnty. Dep't of Child. & Fam. Servs. v. Lydia O., 8 Cal. App. 5th 636 (Cal. Ct. App. 2017). “) Although this crisis was the product of several related causes, Congress expressly found that State agencies and courts had often failed to recognize the essential tribal relations of Indian people and the cultural and social standards prevailing in Indian communities and…”
Los Angeles Cnty. Dep't of Child. & Fam. Servs. v. Ashlee R., 373 P.3d 444 (Cal. 2016). “) The minimum standards established by ICWA include the requirement of notice to Indian tribes in any involuntary proceeding in state court to place a child in foster care or to terminate parental rights “where the court knows or has reason to know that an Indian child is…”
Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians v. Holyfield, 490 U.S. 30 (1989). “" 25 U. S. C. § 1902 . *65 The Court concludes its opinion with the observation that whatever anguish is suffered by the Indian children, their natural parents, and their adoptive parents because of its decision today is a result of their failure to initially follow the…”
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.