25 U.S.C. § 1920
Improper removal of child from custody; declination of jurisdiction; forthwith return of child: danger exception
Where any petitioner in an Indian child custody proceeding before a State court has improperly removed the child from custody of the parent or Indian custodian or has improperly retained custody after a visit or other temporary relinquishment of custody, the court shall decline jurisdiction over such petition and shall forthwith return the child to his parent or Indian custodian unless returning the child to his parent or custodian would subject the child to a substantial and immediate danger or threat of such danger.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 17
cases (6 in the last 5 years), 1985–2025 · leading case: In re Guardianship of Eliza W., 304 Neb. 995 (Neb. 2020).
In re Guardianship of Eliza W., 304 Neb. 995 (Neb. 2020). “See 25 U.S.C. § 1920 (2012). Tara contends that the county court improperly removed Eliza from the custody of Tara and that, therefore, § 43-1512 applies and requires us to reverse the order and remand the - 1013 - Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets 304 Nebraska Reports IN RE…”
In re Dependency of A.L.K., L.R.C.K.-S., D.B.C.K.-S., 478 P.3d 63 (Wash. 2020). “The Remedy Under 25 U.S.C. § 1920 , [w]here any petitioner in an Indian child custody proceeding before a State court has improperly removed the child from custody of the parent or Indian custodian or has improperly retained custody after a visit or other temporary…”
In Re The Welfare Of A.l.c., 439 P.3d 694 (Wash. Ct. App. 2019). “25 U.S.C. § 1920 . Similarly, under WICWA, If a petitioner in a child custody proceeding under this chapter has improperly removed the child from the custody of the parent or Indian custodian or has improperly retained custody after a visit or other temporary relinquishment of…”
In re Dependency of G.J.A., 489 P.3d 631 (Wash. 2021). “” 25 U.S.C. § 1920 ; RCW 13.38.160 (same). This remedy is proper during the early stages of a dependency or any other stage where removal of the child may have been improper.”
D.E.D. v. State, 704 P.2d 774 (Alaska 1985). “The legislative history of § 1920 states as follows: Section 110 [ 25 U.S.C. § 1920 ] establishes a “clean hands” doctrine with respect to petitions in State court for the custody of an Indian child by a person who improperly has such child in physical custody.”
State, Dept. of Health & Soc. Servs., Off. of Child.'s Servs. v. Michelle P, 411 P.3d 576 (Alaska 2018). “25 U.S.C. § 1920 (emphasis added). CINA Rule 20(c) (emphasis added).”
Doe v. Mann, 285 F. Supp. 2d 1229 (N.D. Cal. 2003). “” 25 U.S.C. § 1920 . Among other allegations, plaintiff states that DSS failed to make active efforts to provide remedial services and rehabilitative programs and failed to show these efforts were unsuccessful.”
Pam R. v. State, Dep't of Health & Soc. Servs., 185 P.3d 67 (Alaska 2008). “§ 1914 (2000); and (7) the right to have an Indian child returned when a petitioner in a state court child custody proceeding improperly removes or retains custody of the child, unless the child would be endangered, 25 U.S.C. § 1920 (2000). If Pam were the children's Indian…”
Fletcher v. State of Fla., 858 F. Supp. 169 (M.D. Fla. 1994). “” ICWA, 25 U.S.C. § 1920 . The minor plaintiffs are no longer in foster care.”
DED v. State, 704 P.2d 774 (Alaska 1985). “The legislative history of § 1920 states as follows: Section 110 [ 25 U.S.C. § 1920 ] establishes a "clean hands" doctrine with respect to petitions in State court for the custody of an Indian child by a person who improperly has such child in physical custody.”
Motjuste Tirade of Vim Andre Juste v. Brennan, 16 F. Supp. 3d 716 (N.D.W. Va. 2014). “§§ 1985 and 1986; various federal criminal laws; the Indian Child Welfare Act ( 25 U.S.C. § 1920 ); and, the Parental Kidnapping Prevention Act (28 U.”
In the Matter of the Dependency of: A.T. (Wash. Ct. App. 2024). “to his father’s care would subject him to substantial and immediate danger or threat of such danger. This finding was amply supported by the record.”
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.