25 U.S.C. § 1911

Indian tribe jurisdiction over Indian child custody proceedings

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 25 CasesGoogle Scholar

(a) Exclusive jurisdiction

An Indian tribe shall have jurisdiction exclusive as to any State over any child custody proceeding involving an Indian child who resides or is domiciled within the reservation of such tribe, except where such jurisdiction is otherwise vested in the State by existing Federal law. Where an Indian child is a ward of a tribal court, the Indian tribe shall retain exclusive jurisdiction, notwithstanding the residence or domicile of the child.

(b) Transfer of proceedings; declination by tribal court

In any State court proceeding for the foster care placement of, or termination of parental rights to, an Indian child not domiciled or residing within the reservation of the Indian child’s tribe, the court, in the absence of good cause to the contrary, shall transfer such proceeding to the jurisdiction of the tribe, absent objection by either parent, upon the petition of either parent or the Indian custodian or the Indian child’s tribe: Provided, That such transfer shall be subject to declination by the tribal court of such tribe.

In any State court proceeding for the foster care placement of, or termination of parental rights to, an Indian child, the Indian custodian of the child and the Indian child’s tribe shall have a right to intervene at any point in the proceeding.

(d) Full faith and credit to public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of Indian tribes

The United States, every State, every territory or possession of the United States, and every Indian tribe shall give full faith and credit to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of any Indian tribe applicable to Indian child custody proceedings to the same extent that such entities give full faith and credit to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of any other entity.

(Pub. L. 95–608, title I, § 101, Nov. 8, 1978, 92 Stat. 3071.)

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 736 cases (179 in the last 5 years), 1980–2026 · leading case: Los Angeles Cnty. Dep't of Child. & Fam. Servs. v. Ashlee R., 373 P.3d 444 (Cal. 2016).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Los Angeles Cnty. Dep't of Child. & Fam. Servs. v. Ashlee R., 373 P.3d 444 (Cal. 2016). · cites it 5× “(See 25 U.S.C. § 1911 (c) [“In any State court proceeding for the foster care placement of, or termination of parental rights to, an Indian child, .”

In re the Welfare of R.S., 805 N.W.2d 44 (Minn. 2011). · cites it 29× “The district court granted the Band’s motion, over the objections of the guardian ad litem, under 25 U.S.C. § 1911 (b) (2006). 1 The court held that although transfer of the preadoptive proceedings was not authorized under a literal reading of ICWA, Congress nevertheless…”

Matter of Adoption of Halloway, 732 P.2d 962 (Utah 1986). · cites it 20× “" 25 U.S.C. § 1911 (a) (1982) (emphasis added).”

Comanche Indian Tribe of Oklahoma v. Hovis, 847 F. Supp. 871 (W.D. Okla. 1994). · cites it 51× “The basis of the motion was that Rhonda Wahnee’s oral objection to the transfer of the case at the May 27, 1987, hearing, made transfer of the action to the Tribal Court improper under the ICWA, 25 U.S.C. § 1911 (b). The matter was heard by Judge Hovis, who issued an order…”

Hammer v. State, 2022 OK 80 (Okla. 2022). · cites it 21× “30, 36 (1989) (recognizing 25 U.S.C. § 1911 (b) "creates concurrent but presumptively tribal jurisdiction in the case of children not domiciled on the reservation .”

Tyrus H. Thompson & Ja'Ree C. Thompson v. Fairfax Cnty. Dep't of Fam. Servs., 747 S.E.2d 838 (Va. Ct. App. 2013). · cites it 17× “The Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA) provides, with regard to a termination of parental rights case involving an Indian child not domiciled on a reservation under 25 U.S.C. § 1911 (a), that state courts “shall transfer” the case to a tribal court unless the court finds “good…”

In re Baby Boy C., 27 A.D.3d 34 (N.Y. App. Div. 2005). · cites it 14× “We further find that although ICWA is generally applicable to this proceeding, it does not expressly authorize tribal intervention in adoption proceedings as a matter of right ( 25 USC § 1911 [c]). Nevertheless, because the Tribe has a significant interest in having ICWA applied…”

In the Matter of S.J.W., 2023 OK 49 (Okla. 2023). · cites it 12× “25 U.S.C. § 1911 (b) (2018). Under the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA), 25 U.”

In Re the Matter of J.D.M.C., 2007 SD 97 (S.D. 2007). · cites it 16× “] While Indian tribes are not technically “states” to which the United States Constitution’s full faith and credit clause would apply, under ICWA, a judgment entered in the SWO tribal court must be given full faith and credit in our state courts.”

Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians v. Holyfield, 490 U.S. 30 (1989). · cites it 4× “Since, for purposes of the ICWA, the twin babies in this case were domiciled on the reservation when adoption proceedings were begun, the Choctaw tribal court possessed exclusive jurisdiction pursuant to 25 U. S. C. § 1911 (a). The Chancery Court of Harrison County was,…”

In re Child of Radience K., 2019 ME 73 (Me. 2019). · cites it 8× “§ 4055(1)(B)(2)(b)(i)-(ii), and the father challenges the court's denial of his two motions to transfer the case to the Penobscot Nation Tribal Court, see 25 U.S.C.S. § 1911 (b), and the denial of his post-judgment motion alleging ineffective assistance of counsel, see M.”

In Re Antoinette S., 129 Cal. Rptr. 2d 15 (Cal. Ct. App. 2002). · cites it 5× “Compare 25 U.S.C. § 1911 (b) & (c) [recognizing state court jurisdiction over foster care placement and termination of parental rights proceedings], with 25 U.”

Show all 736 citing cases →

— 25 U.S.C. § 1911(a) — 6 cases

Hammer v. State, 2022 OK 80 (Okla. 2022). “30, 36 (1989) (recognizing 25 U.S.C. § 1911 (b) "creates concurrent but presumptively tribal jurisdiction in the case of children not domiciled on the reservation .”

In Re the Matter of J.D.M.C., 2007 SD 97 (S.D. 2007). “] While Indian tribes are not technically “states” to which the United States Constitution’s full faith and credit clause would apply, under ICWA, a judgment entered in the SWO tribal court must be given full faith and credit in our state courts.”

In Re Adoption of SS, 657 N.E.2d 935 (Ill. 1995).

In Re Jdmc, 2007 SD 97 (S.D. 2007).

In the Guardianship of C.H.S., 2016 OK CIV APP 72 (Okla. Civ. App. 2016).

— 25 U.S.C. § 1911(b) — 9 cases

In the Matter of M.K.T., 2016 OK 4 (Okla. 2016).

Yavapai-Apache Tribe v. Mejia, 906 S.W.2d 152 (Tex. App. 1995).

In the Matter of M.H.C., 2016 OK 88 (Okla. 2016).

— 25 U.S.C. § 1911(c) — 5 cases

In re B.C., 786 N.W.2d 350 (S.D. 2010).

State v. K.M., 451 N.W.2d 377 (Neb. 1990).

In Re Jdmc, 2007 SD 97 (S.D. 2007).

Matter of B.C. & I.C., 2010 SD 59 (S.D. 2010).

— 25 U.S.C. § 1911(d) — 2 cases

State v. Native Vill. of Tanana, 249 P.3d 734 (Alaska 2011).

In the Guardianship of C.H.S., 2016 OK CIV APP 72 (Okla. Civ. App. 2016).

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.