25 U.S.C. § 1912

Pending court proceedings

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

(a) Notice; time for commencement of proceedings; additional time for preparation

In any involuntary proceeding in a State court, where the court knows or has reason to know that an Indian child is involved, the party seeking the foster care placement of, or termination of parental rights to, an Indian child shall notify the parent or Indian custodian and the Indian child’s tribe, by registered mail with return receipt requested, of the pending proceedings and of their right of intervention. If the identity or location of the parent or Indian custodian and the tribe cannot be determined, such notice shall be given to the Secretary in like manner, who shall have fifteen days after receipt to provide the requisite notice to the parent or Indian custodian and the tribe. No foster care placement or termination of parental rights proceeding shall be held until at least ten days after receipt of notice by the parent or Indian custodian and the tribe or the Secretary: Provided, That the parent or Indian custodian or the tribe shall, upon request, be granted up to twenty additional days to prepare for such proceeding.

(b) Appointment of counsel

In any case in which the court determines indigency, the parent or Indian custodian shall have the right to court-appointed counsel in any removal, placement, or termination proceeding. The court may, in its discretion, appoint counsel for the child upon a finding that such appointment is in the best interest of the child. Where State law makes no provision for appointment of counsel in such proceedings, the court shall promptly notify the Secretary upon appointment of counsel, and the Secretary, upon certification of the presiding judge, shall pay reasonable fees and expenses out of funds which may be appropriated pursuant to section 13 of this title.

Each party to a foster care placement or termination of parental rights proceeding under State law involving an Indian child shall have the right to examine all reports or other documents filed with the court upon which any decision with respect to such action may be based.

(d) Remedial services and rehabilitative programs; preventive measures

Any party seeking to effect a foster care placement of, or termination of parental rights to, an Indian child under State law shall satisfy the court that active efforts have been made to provide remedial services and rehabilitative programs designed to prevent the breakup of the Indian family and that these efforts have proved unsuccessful.

(e) Foster care placement orders; evidence; determination of damage to child

No foster care placement may be ordered in such proceeding in the absence of a determination, supported by clear and convincing evidence, including testimony of qualified expert witnesses, that the continued custody of the child by the parent or Indian custodian is likely to result in serious emotional or physical damage to the child.

(f) Parental rights termination orders; evidence; determination of damage to child

No termination of parental rights may be ordered in such proceeding in the absence of a determination, supported by evidence beyond a reasonable doubt, including testimony of qualified expert witnesses, that the continued custody of the child by the parent or Indian custodian is likely to result in serious emotional or physical damage to the child.

(Pub. L. 95–608, title I, § 102, Nov. 8, 1978, 92 Stat. 3071.)

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 1,935 cases (598 in the last 5 years), 1980–2026 · leading case: Jude M. v. State, Dep't of Health & Soc. Servs., Off. of Child.'s Servs., 394 P.3d 543 (Alaska 2017).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Jude M. v. State, Dep't of Health & Soc. Servs., Off. of Child.'s Servs., 394 P.3d 543 (Alaska 2017). · cites it 23× “088(a) – (c); 25 U.S.C. § 1912 (d) (2012); CINA Rule 18(c).”

Monroe Cnty. Dep't of Human Servs. v. Luis R., 2009 WI App 109 (Wis. Ct. App. 2009). · cites it 49× “We conclude that 25 U.S.C. § 1912 (f) applies even though the child has been placed outside the parental home before the TPR proceeding is filed.”

Brown Cnty. v. Shannon R., 2005 WI 160 (Wis. 2005). · cites it 22× “Special verdict questions 5 and 6 incorporate the requirements set forth in 25 U.S.C. § 1912 (d); section 1912(d) does not, however, provide an applicable burden of proof.”

People in Interest of M.V, 2018 COA 163 (Colo. Ct. App. 2018). · cites it 7× “25 U.S.C. § 1912 (a) (2018); Holyfield, 490 U.”

Los Angeles Cnty. Dep't of Child. & Fam. Servs. v. Ashlee R., 373 P.3d 444 (Cal. 2016). · cites it 5× “” ( 25 U.S.C. § 1912 (a).) This notice requirement, which is also codified in California law (Welf.”

Adoptive Couple v. Baby Girl, 133 S. Ct. 2552 (2013). · cites it 11× “As relevant here, the ICWA bars involun- tary termination of a parent’s rights in the absence of a heightened showing that serious harm to the Indian child is likely to result from the parent’s “continued custody” of the child, 25 U. S. C. §1912 (f); conditions involuntary…”

R.B. v. C.W., 383 P.3d 492 (Wash. 2016). · cites it 10× “¶13 Division Two of the Court of Appeals unanimously held that both 25 U.S.C. § 1912 (d) of ICWA and RCW 13.38.”

People ex rel. A.V., 297 P.3d 1019 (Colo. Ct. App. 2012). · cites it 6× “25 U.S.C. § 1912 (d) (2006). T8 As an initial matter, father contends that the court was required to make active efforts findings by "clear and convincing evidence.”

In re S.R., 436 P.3d 696 (Mont. 2019). · cites it 25× “See 25 U.S.C. § 1912 . ¶12 Like all parents, Indian parents have fundamental federal and Montana constitutional rights in the custody and care of their children.”

Desiree F. v. Daniel F., 99 Cal. Rptr. 2d 688 (Cal. Ct. App. 2000). · cites it 14× “( 25 U.S.C. § 1912 (b).) On August 11, 1998, Desiree was moved to a foster home in Kings County.”

In Re Sb, 30 Cal. Rptr. 3d 726 (Cal. Ct. App. 2005). · cites it 10× “For purposes of the ICWA, it specifically found, beyond a reasonable doubt, that continued custody of the child by the parents was likely to cause serious emotional or physical damage to the child (see 25 U.S.C. § 1912 (f)) and, by clear and convincing evidence, that active…”

In re Dependency of Z.J.G., 471 P.3d 853 (Wash. 2020). · cites it 11× “25 U.S.C. § 1912 (a); RCW 13.38.070(1); 25 C.”

Show all 1,935 citing cases →

— 25 U.S.C. § 1912(a) — 8 cases

In re M.S., 336 P.3d 930 (Mont. 2014).

In the Matter of J.W.E., 2018 OK CIV APP 29 (Okla. Civ. App. 2018).

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

Order Promulgating Amendments to the Rules of Juv. Prot. Procedure. Adm10-8041 (Minn. 2016).

in the Interest of D.L.N.G., a Child (Tex. App. 2019).

— 25 U.S.C. § 1912(d) — 12 cases

Bob S. v. State, Dep't of Health & Soc. Servs., Off. of Child.'s Servs., 400 P.3d 99 (Alaska 2017).

Adoptive Couple v. Baby Girl, 746 S.E.2d 51 (S.C. 2013).

In the Matter of W.P., 2022 OK CIV APP 31 (Okla. Civ. App. 2022).

In re B.Y., 432 P.3d 129 (Mont. 2018).

In the Matter of Minor Child G.V., 2016 OK CIV APP 6 (Okla. Civ. App. 2015).

— 25 U.S.C. § 1912(e) — 8 cases

Miranda T. v. State of Alaska DHSS, OCS, 524 P.3d 1105 (Alaska 2023).

Tuluksak Native Cmty. v. State of Alaska, DHSS, OCS, 530 P.3d 359 (Alaska 2023).

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

In the Matter of J.C., 2018 OK CIV APP 32 (Okla. Civ. App. 2018).

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

— 25 U.S.C. § 1912(f) — 18 cases

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

In the Matter of Iw, 2018 OK CIV APP 6 (Okla. Civ. App. 2017).

Adoptive Couple v. Baby Girl, 133 S. Ct. 2552 (2013). “As relevant here, the ICWA bars involun- tary termination of a parent’s rights in the absence of a heightened showing that serious harm to the Indian child is likely to result from the parent’s “continued custody” of the child, 25 U. S. C. §1912 (f); conditions involuntary…”

In the Matter of: M.R., 2024 OK 28 (Okla. 2024).

Bob S. v. State, Dep't of Health & Soc. Servs., Off. of Child.'s Servs., 400 P.3d 99 (Alaska 2017).

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.