25 U.S.C. § 1914
Petition to court of competent jurisdiction to invalidate action upon showing of certain violations
Any Indian child who is the subject of any action for foster care placement or termination of parental rights under State law, any parent or Indian custodian from whose custody such child was removed, and the Indian child’s tribe may petition any court of competent jurisdiction to invalidate such action upon a showing that such action violated any provision of sections 1911, 1912, and 1913 of this title.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 447
cases (156 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).
Los Angeles Cnty. Dep't of Child. & Fam. Servs. v. Ashlee R., 373 P.3d 444 (Cal. 2016). “” ( 25 U.S.C. § 1914 .) This latter provision contemplates that ICWA’s notice requirements may be enforced after the issuance of an order terminating parental rights.”
Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians v. Holyfield, 490 U.S. 30 (1989). “The Chancery Court of Harrison County was, accordingly, without jurisdiction to enter a decree of adoption; under ICWA § 104, 25 U. S. C. § 1914 , its decree of January 28, 1986, must be vacated.”
Sacramento Cnty. Dep't of Child v. J.C. (In re A.W.), 38 Cal. App. 5th 655 (Cal. Ct. App. 2019). “( 25 U.S.C. § 1914 ; 25 C.F.R. § 23.137 ; § 224, subd.”
In re Antoinette S., 104 Cal. App. 4th 1401 (Cal. Ct. App. 2002). “" ( 25 U.S.C. § 1914 .) Thus, because it is critical to the tribes in which the dependent child may have existing or future membership, and because tribes depend on parents in the first instance to notify state social workers and courts of known or potential Indian ancestry,…”
In re the Adoption of T.N.F., 781 P.2d 973 (Alaska 1989). “Since only a parent or Indian custodian can invalidate an action for termination of parental rights, 25 U.S.C. § 1914 , the putative father in this case could not prevail.”
In re SB, 130 Cal. App. 4th 1148 (Cal. Ct. App. 2005). “) Third and finally, under the enforcement provision, on the petition of the Indian child, a parent from whose custody an Indian child has been removed, or the Indian child's tribe, "any court of competent jurisdiction" must invalidate any "action for foster care placement or…”
In re Brooke C., 127 Cal. App. 4th 377 (Cal. Ct. App. 2005). “The record does not reflect that notice of the proceedings was sent to the Bureau of Indian Affairs. Although responses from two tribes are in the record, it does not contain proof that known ancestors were properly identified.”
Adoption B.B. v. R.K.B., 2017 UT 59, 417 P.3d 1. “25 U.S.C. § 1914 ("[A]ny parent ... may petition any court of competent jurisdiction to invalidate such action upon a showing that such action violated any provision of sections 1911, 1912, and 1913 of this title.”
Dwayne P. v. Superior Court, 103 Cal. App. 4th 247 (Cal. Ct. App. 2002). “( 25 U.S.C. § 1914 .) B The parents contend they raised the possibility their children are Indian children within the meaning of the ICWA, and the court prejudicially erred by not complying with its notice requirement.”
In re Marinna J., 90 Cal. App. 4th 731 (Cal. Ct. App. 2001). “( 25 U.S.C. § 1914 .) A major purpose of the Act is to protect "Indian children who are members of or are eligible for membership in an Indian tribe.”
People in Interest of M.V, 2018 COA 163, 432 P.3d 628. “25 U.S.C. § 1914 (2018). But, the remedy does not void the court’s subject matter jurisdiction.”
In the Interest of J.J.C., 302 S.W.3d 896 (Tex. App.—Waco 2009). “Compare 25 U.S.C.S. § 1914 with Tex. Fam.Code Ann.”
25 U.S.C. § 1914(2005): 1 case
State, Dep't of Health & Soc. Servs., Div. of Fam. & Youth Servs. v. Native Vill. of Curyung, 151 P.3d 388 (Alaska 2006).
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.