25 U.S.C. § 1919
Agreements between States and Indian tribes
States and Indian tribes are authorized to enter into agreements with each other respecting care and custody of Indian children and jurisdiction over child custody proceedings, including agreements which may provide for orderly transfer of jurisdiction on a case-by-case basis and agreements which provide for concurrent jurisdiction between States and Indian tribes.
Such agreements may be revoked by either party upon one hundred and eighty days’ written notice to the other party. Such revocation shall not affect any action or proceeding over which a court has already assumed jurisdiction, unless the agreement provides otherwise.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 28
cases (7 in the last 5 years), 1985–2025 · leading case: Hammer v. State, 2022 OK 80 (Okla. 2022).
Hammer v. State, 2022 OK 80 (Okla. 2022). “Absent an intergovernmental agreement pursuant to 25 U.S.C. § 1919 (a), a tribal court could be argued to have exclusive jurisdiction over this child custody proceeding.”
In Re the Matter of J.D.M.C., 2007 SD 97 (S.D. 2007). “25 USCA § 1919 (emphasis added). SWO and DSS have entered into a purchase service agreement that SWO alleges is of the type contemplated by section 1919.”
In re the Welfare of R.S., 805 N.W.2d 44 (Minn. 2011). “The question before the court of appeals in this case was not the transfer of pre-adoptive placement proceedings to a tribal court with concurrent jurisdiction, but the endowment of the tribal court with jurisdiction.”
In re E.G.M., 750 S.E.2d 857 (N.C. Ct. App. 2013). “Respondents observe that the district court made no findings as to any agreement between the Tribe and the State affecting the tribal court’s exclusive jurisdiction under 25 U.S.C. § 1919 (a). Therefore, they contend, the court’s orders in this cause are void.”
Termination of Parental Rights of John Doe (2014-25), 349 P.3d 1205 (Idaho 2015). “As another defense to Doe’s jurisdictional challenge, Mother and Stepfather argue that the Tribes and the State “have at least an implicit agreement to share concurrent jurisdiction,” evidenced by the Tribes’ decision to withdraw, that would authorize the State’s exercise of…”
State ex rel. State Off. for Servs. to Child. & Families v. Klamath Tribe, 11 P.3d 701 (Or. Ct. App. 2000). “) In furtherance of the protection of Indian children, 25 USC § 1919 (a) provides that “States and Indian tribes are authorized to enter into agreements with each other respecting care and custody of Indian children and jurisdiction over child custody proceedings, including…”
In the Matter of S.J.W., 2023 OK 49 (Okla. 2023). “25 U.S.C. § 1919 . States and Indian tribes are authorized to enter into agreements with each other respecting care and custody of Indian children and jurisdiction over child custody proceedings, including agreements which may provide for orderly transfer of jurisdiction on a…”
Malabed v. North Slope Borough, 70 P.3d 416 (Alaska 2003). “100(g) allows the Department of Health and Social Services to "enter into agreements with Alaska Native villages or Native organizations under 25 U.S.C. § 1919 (Indian Child Welfare Act of 1978) respecting the care and custody of Native children and jurisdiction of Native child…”
In Re Mm, 65 Cal. Rptr. 3d 273 (Cal. Ct. App. 2007). “) They further state that transfers should be arranged "as simply as possible consistent with due process" and suggest that "[t]ransfer procedures are a good subject for tribal-state agreements under 25 U.S.C. § 1919 ." [8] (BIA Guidelines, supra, at p.”
Red Fox v. Hettich, 494 N.W.2d 638 (S.D. 1993). “§ 1911 (d) or 25 U.S.C. § 1919 . [3] 28 U.S.C. § 1738 (1988) requires states to give full faith and credit to judicial proceedings of other states, territories or possessions.”
Raena R. v. State, 272 P.3d 126 (Nev. 2012). “§ 1903 (4) (defining ‘“Indian child’” as “any unmarried person who is under age eighteen and is either (a) a member of an Indian tribe or (b) is eligible for membership in an Indian tribe and is the biological child of a member of an Indian tribe”); see also id. § 1903(l)(ii)…”
State v. Native Vill. of Tanana, 249 P.3d 734 (Alaska 2011). “" 25 U.S.C. § 1919 (a) (2000). 84 . Millennium Agreement between the Federally Recognized Sovereign Tribes of Alaska and the State of Alaska, note 83, above, at T 12(a).”
— 25 U.S.C. § 1919(a) — 1 case
Hammer v. State, 2022 OK 80 (Okla. 2022). “Absent an intergovernmental agreement pursuant to 25 U.S.C. § 1919 (a), a tribal court could be argued to have exclusive jurisdiction over this child custody proceeding.”
— 25 U.S.C. § 1919(b) — 2 cases
In Re the Matter of J.D.M.C., 2007 SD 97 (S.D. 2007). “25 USCA § 1919 (emphasis added). SWO and DSS have entered into a purchase service agreement that SWO alleges is of the type contemplated by section 1919.”
In Re Jdmc, 2007 SD 97 (S.D. 2007).
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.