25 U.S.C. § 1921
Higher State or Federal standard applicable to protect rights of parent or Indian custodian of Indian child
In any case where State or Federal law applicable to a child custody proceeding under State or Federal law provides a higher standard of protection to the rights of the parent or Indian custodian of an Indian child than the rights provided under this subchapter, the State or Federal court shall apply the State or Federal standard.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 148
cases (55 in the last 5 years), 1985–2026 · leading case: R.B. v. C.W., 383 P.3d 492 (Wash. 2016).
R.B. v. C.W., 383 P.3d 492 (Wash. 2016). “See 25 U.S.C. § 1921 (declaring that when ICWA applies, it will yield to state laws that provide “a higher standard of protection to the rights of the parent or Indian custodian of an Indian child”).”
Adoption B.B. v. R.K.B., 2017 UT 59 (Utah 2017). “25 U.S.C. § 1921 . Applying state law to determine who is a parent under ICWA would, in some cases, provide a lower level of protection of parental rights than ICWA intends.”
Sacramento Cnty. Dep't of Health & Human Servs. v. Joseph A., 375 P.3d 879 (Cal. 2016). “Echoing ICWA’s parallel provision ( 25 U.S.C. § 1921 ), the state statute provides: “In any case in which this code or other applicable state or federal law provides a higher standard of protection to the rights of the parent or Indian custodian of an Indian child, or the Indian…”
Matter of Adoption of Baby Boy D, 742 P.2d 1059 (Okla. 1985). “Title 25 U.S.C. § 1921 [14] requires that state standards must be applied in lieu of federal law if the state affords a higher degree of protection to the rights of the parent of an Indian child.”
Linda H. v. Tyler R. (In Re Micah H.), 301 Neb. 437 (Neb. 2018). “32 See § 43-1513 and 25 U.S.C. § 1921 . 33 § 43-1505(4) (as amended by 2015 Neb.”
San Diego Cnty. Health & Human Servs. Agency v. J.C., 192 Cal. App. 4th 967 (Cal. Ct. App. 2011). “1421; 25 U.S.C. § 1921 ; accord, Welf. & Inst. Code, § 224, subd.”
Los Angeles Cnty. Dep't of Child. & Fam. Servs. v. Lydia O., 8 Cal. App. 5th 636 (Cal. Ct. App. 2017). “which is required to complete the Notice of Child Custody Proceeding for Indian Child (form ICWA-030).” ICWA authorizes the states to provide “a higher standard of protection to the rights of the parent .”
In re Dependency of Z.J.G., 471 P.3d 853 (Wash. 2020). “25 U.S.C. § 1921 . Moreover, statutes that deal with issues affecting Native people and tribes “are to be construed liberally in favor of the Indians, with ambiguous provisions interpreted to their benefit.”
In the Interest of K.S., a Child, 448 S.W.3d 521 (Tex. App. 2014). “See 25 U.S.C.A. § 1921 . Congress found that the states have often failed to recognize the essential tribal relations of Indian people and the cultural and social standards prevailing in Indian communities and families.”
In re Dependency of G.J.A., 489 P.3d 631 (Wash. 2021). “25 U.S.C. § 1921 ; In re Adoption of T.A.”
In Re Custody of CCM, 202 P.3d 971 (Wash. Ct. App. 2009). “25 U.S.C. § 1921 . Here, Washington law accords a clear preference for parental custody.”
Mecum v. Dep't of Soc. & Health Servs., 149 Wash. App. 184 (Wash. Ct. App. 2009). “25 U.S.C. § 1921 . Here, Washington law accords a clear preference for *192 parental custody.”
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.