U.S. Code » Title 25 » Chapter CHAPTER 21— INDIAN CHILD WELFARE › Subchapter SUBCHAPTER I— CHILD CUSTODY PROCEEDINGS

25 U.S.C. § 1918

Reassumption of jurisdiction over child cus­tody proceedings

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 25 CasesGoogle Scholar
(a) Petition; suitable plan; approval by Secretary

Any Indian tribe which became subject to State jurisdiction pursuant to the provisions of the Act of August 15, 1953 (67 Stat. 588), as amended by title IV of the Act of April 11, 1968 (82 Stat. 73, 78), or pursuant to any other Federal law, may reassume jurisdiction over child custody proceedings. Before any Indian tribe may reassume jurisdiction over Indian child custody proceedings, such tribe shall present to the Secretary for approval a petition to reassume such jurisdiction which includes a suitable plan to exercise such jurisdiction.

(b) Criteria applicable to consideration by Secretary; partial retrocession(1) In considering the petition and feasibility of the plan of a tribe under subsection (a), the Secretary may consider, among other things:(i) whether or not the tribe maintains a membership roll or alternative provision for clearly identifying the persons who will be affected by the reassumption of jurisdiction by the tribe;(ii) the size of the reservation or former reservation area which will be affected by retrocession and reassumption of jurisdiction by the tribe;(iii) the population base of the tribe, or distribution of the population in homogeneous communities or geographic areas; and(iv) the feasibility of the plan in cases of multitribal occupation of a single reservation or geographic area.(2) In those cases where the Secretary determines that the jurisdictional provisions of section 1911(a) of this title are not feasible, he is authorized to accept partial retrocession which will enable tribes to exercise referral jurisdiction as provided in section 1911(b) of this title, or, where appropriate, will allow them to exercise exclusive jurisdiction as provided in section 1911(a) of this title over limited community or geographic areas without regard for the reservation status of the area affected.(c) Approval of petition; publication in Federal Register; notice; reassumption period; correction of causes for disapproval

If the Secretary approves any petition under subsection (a), the Secretary shall publish notice of such approval in the Federal Register and shall notify the affected State or States of such approval. The Indian tribe concerned shall reassume jurisdiction sixty days after publication in the Federal Register of notice of approval. If the Secretary disapproves any petition under subsection (a), the Secretary shall provide such technical assistance as may be necessary to enable the tribe to correct any deficiency which the Secretary identified as a cause for disapproval.

(d) Pending actions or proceedings unaffected

Assumption of jurisdiction under this section shall not affect any action or proceeding over which a court has already assumed jurisdiction, except as may be provided pursuant to any agreement under section 1919 of this title.

(Pub. L. 95–608, title I, § 108, Nov. 8, 1978, 92 Stat. 3074.)Editorial NotesReferences in Text

Act of August 15, 1953, referred to in subsec. (a), is act Aug. 15, 1953, ch. 505, 67 Stat. 588, which enacted section 1162 of Title 18, Crimes and Criminal Procedure, section 1360 of Title 28, Judiciary and Judicial Procedure, and provisions set out as notes under section 1360 of Title 28. For complete classification of this Act to the Code, see Tables.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 22 cases, 1986–2018 · leading case: Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians v. Holyfield, 490 U.S. 30 (1989).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians v. Holyfield, 490 U.S. 30 (1989). · cites it 2× “Title 25 U. S. C. § 1918 permits a tribe in that situation to reassume jurisdiction over child custody proceedings upon petition to the Secretary of the Interior.”
John v. Baker, 982 P.2d 738 (Alaska 1999). · cites it 3× “25 U.S.C. § 1918 (a). . See 28 U.S.C. § 1360 (a).”
State v. Native Vill. of Tanana, 249 P.3d 734 (Alaska 2011). · cites it 2× “Baker's implications, concluded that: Alaska state courts have exclusive jurisdiction over child custody proceedings involy-ing Alaska Native children unless (1) the child's tribe has successfully petitioned the Department of Interior to reassume exclusive or concurrent…”
Native Vill. of Venetie I.R.A. Council v. Alaska, 687 F. Supp. 1380 (D. Alaska 1988). · cites it 4× “280 states, codified in ICWA at 25 U.S.C. § 1918 . This scheme reconciles the purposes of ICWA with the purposes of P.”
Native Vill. of Nenana v. State, Dep't of Health & Soc. Servs., 722 P.2d 219 (Alaska 1986). · cites it 2× “The superior court found that “[t]he Native Village of Nenana has not been approved by the Secretary of the United States Department of the Interior to reas-sume jurisdiction over child custody proceedings pursuant to 25 U.S.C. § 1918 .” Thus, the court concluded that the tribe…”
Yavapai-Apache Tribe v. Mejia, 906 S.W.2d 152 (Tex. App. 1995). “25 U.S.C.A. § 1918 (1983); Department of Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Guidelines for State Courts; Indian Child Custody Proceedings, 44 Fed.”
Doe v. Mann, 285 F. Supp. 2d 1229 (N.D. Cal. 2003). “” 25 U.S.C. § 1918 (a). In order to reassume jurisdiction, tribes must submit a “suitable plan” to the Secretary of Interior to show that reassumption is feasible.”
Cherokee Nation v. Nomura, 2007 OK 40 (Okla. 2007). “But see 25 U.S.C. § 1918 (c) which provides, "In any voluntary proceeding for termination of parental rights to, or adoptive placement of, an Indian child, the consent of the parent may be withdrawn for any reason at any time prior to the entry of a final decree of termination…”
In re F.P., 843 P.2d 1214 (Alaska 1992). · cites it 5× “Under 25 U.S.C. § 1918 (a) (1988), any Alaskan Native group seeking to “reas-sume” jurisdiction over child custody matters must first petition the Secretary of the Interior for approval.”
Termination of Parental Rights of John Doe (2014-25), 349 P.3d 1205 (Idaho 2015). · cites it 2× “Second, the Ninth Circuit discussed Congress’s recognition of Public Law 280 in 25 U.S.C. § 1918 (a), which provides: Any Indian tribe which became subject to State jurisdiction pursuant to the provisions of the Act of August 15, 1953 ( 67 Stat.”
In re K.E., 744 P.2d 1173 (Alaska 1987). · cites it 3× “1 In Nenana, the superior court denied the tribe’s 2 petition for transfer of jurisdiction because the tribe had failed to obtain the approval of the Secretary of the Interior of its plan for dealing with child custody matters as required by 25 U.S.C. § 1918 (a). 3 722 P.2d at…”
Native Vill. of Venetie I.R.A. Council v. Alaska, 944 F.2d 548 (9th Cir. 1991). “Likewise, referral jurisdiction is broader in scope than concurrent jurisdiction, in that referral jurisdiction is concurrent but presumptively tribal jurisdiction.”
Show all 22 citing cases →
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.