Notes of Decisions
In re the Welfare of the Child of E.A.C., 812 N.W.2d 165 (Minn. Ct. App. 2012).
· cites it 8× “’s adoptive parent had voluntarily terminated her parental rights and that, pursuant to ICWA, 25 U.S.C. § 1916 , appellant could petition for return of custody of J.”
Paula E. v. State, Dep't of Health & Soc. Servs., Off. of Child.'s Servs., 276 P.3d 422 (Alaska 2012).
· cites it 2× “[44] As Paula recognizes, 25 U.S.C. § 1916 provides that "[w]henever an Indian child is removed from a foster care home or institution for the purpose of further foster care, preadoptive, or adoptive placement, such placement shall be in accordance with the provisions of this…”
James R. v. Cindy R., 96 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 394 (Cal. Ct. App. 1996).
“” ( 25 U.S.C. § 1916 .) We do *1518 not have that precise situation here; however, we do have something very close: the invalidation of a voluntary relinquishment of parental rights.”
Bruce L. v. W.E., 247 P.3d 966 (Alaska 2011).
“25 U.S.C. § 1916 (a). 31 . A.B.M., 651 P.”
Dep't of Human Servs. v. J. G., 317 P.3d 936 (Or. Ct. App. 2014).
“See 25 USC § 1916 (b) and our later discussion of that section, 260 Or App at 519-20.”
Matter of Baby Boy Doe, 902 P.2d 477 (Idaho 1995).
“The trial court held alternatively that if the consents to adoption were valid, the mother could revoke them under 25 U.S.C. § 1916 (a). Having concluded that the mother had standing irrespective of the consents to adoption, we need not reach the revocation issue.”
A.B.M. v. M.H., 651 P.2d 1170 (Alaska 1982).
· cites it 2× “The pertinent provision of the Act, 25 U.S.C. § 1916 (a), mandates that “whenever a final decree of adoption of an Indian child has been vacated or set aside .”
Matter of Adoption of M., 832 P.2d 518 (Wash. Ct. App. 1992).
“§ 1913 (c); 25 U.S.C. § 1916 (a); A.B.M. v. M.H., 651 P.”
Hampton v. JAL, 658 So. 2d 331 (La. Ct. App. 1995).
“The trial court relied upon the provisions of 25 U.S.C. § 1916 as necessitating a best interest determination before returning custody to the mother.”
D.E.D. v. State, 704 P.2d 774 (Alaska 1985).
“2d 1170 (Alaska 1982) which arose not under §§ 1913 or 1920 but under 25 U.S.C. § 1916 (a) (1983). 11 Thus, as the State notes, there was nothing in R.”
Gautreaux v. Pierce, 707 F.2d 265 (7th Cir. 1983).
“” True, federal law allows an Indian to petition for the return of a child that has been adopted away from him when the adoption is annulled and the return of the child to its natural parent would be “in the best interests of the child,” 25 U.S.C. § 1916 (a); but this provision…”
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.