Notes of Decisions
Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians v. Holyfield, 490 U.S. 30 (1989).
· cites it 8× “[7] Section 103(a) of the ICWA, 25 U. S. C. § 1913 (a), requires that any voluntary consent to termination of parental rights be executed in writing and recorded before a judge of a "court of competent jurisdiction," who must certify that the terms and consequences of the…”
Quinn v. Walters, 881 P.2d 795 (Or. 1994).
· cites it 33× “In that motion, she asserted that Child “is an Indian Child as defined by [ 25 USC § 1903 (4)], and Maki Walters’ consent to adoption is not valid under [ 25 USC § 1913 ]. Maki Walters may withdraw her consent at any time prior to a final decree of adoption being entered.”
Adoption B.B. v. R.K.B., 2017 UT 59 (Utah 2017).
· cites it 4× “" 25 U.S.C. § 1913 (a). Because the Child is an Indian child and therefore ICWA applies to these proceedings, the question is whether Birth Mother's consent was timely given under this section.”
In Re Welfare of MG, 201 P.3d 354 (Wash. Ct. App. 2009).
· cites it 9× “25 U.S.C. § 1913 (a). Further, in a voluntary proceeding, if an Indian parent desires to withdraw his/her consent to placement, the child must be returned to his/her care.”
In re the Welfare of M.G., 148 Wash. App. 781 (Wash. Ct. App. 2009).
· cites it 9× “25 U.S.C. § 1913 (a). Further, in a voluntary proceeding, if an Indian parent desires to withdraw his/her consent to placement, the child must be returned to his/her care.”
James R. v. Cindy R., 96 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 394 (Cal. Ct. App. 1996).
· cites it 5× “) Here, the twins’ biological parents, Richard A. (Richard) and Cindy R.”
Matter of Adoption of Halloway, 732 P.2d 962 (Utah 1986).
· cites it 4× “" 25 U.S.C. § 1913 (a) (1982). Had Cecelia's consent to adoption been sought at the time Jeremiah was still on the reservation, the only court of competent jurisdiction would have been a Navajo Nation court.”
Brackeen v. Zinke, 338 F. Supp. 3d 514 (N.D. Tex. 2018).
· cites it 4× “*522 25 U.S.C. § 1913 (a). Before parental rights are terminated "any parent or Indian custodian may withdraw consent to a foster care placement under State law at any time.”
Brackeen v. Haaland, 994 F.3d 249 (5th Cir. 2021).
· cites it 2× “The en banc court is equally divided as to whether Plaintiffs have standing to challenge two provisions of ICWA, 25 U.S.C. §§ 1913 and 1914, on equal protection grounds, and the district court’s conclusion that Plaintiffs can assert this claim is therefore affirmed without a…”
In the Matter of Adoption of Crews, 803 P.2d 24 (Wash. Ct. App. 1991).
· cites it 8× “This is evidenced by 25 U.S.C. § 1913 (d), which permits revocation of consent after *211 the entry of the final decree of adoption for fraud or duress only within 2 years of the entry of the decree.”
Quinn v. Walters, 845 P.2d 206 (Or. Ct. App. 1993).
· cites it 6× “See 25 U.S.C. § 1913 (c). According to mother's evidence, she became a member of the Cherokee Nation of Oklahoma a week before the hearing on her motion to dismiss the adoption proceeding, and child was then eligible for membership in the tribe.”
— 25 U.S.C. § 1913(a) — 2 cases
In Re Welfare of MG, 201 P.3d 354 (Wash. Ct. App. 2009).
“25 U.S.C. § 1913 (a). Further, in a voluntary proceeding, if an Indian parent desires to withdraw his/her consent to placement, the child must be returned to his/her care.”
In re the Welfare of M.G., 148 Wash. App. 781 (Wash. Ct. App. 2009).
“25 U.S.C. § 1913 (a). Further, in a voluntary proceeding, if an Indian parent desires to withdraw his/her consent to placement, the child must be returned to his/her care.”
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.