Nothing in this subchapter shall be construed to prevent the emergency removal of an Indian child who is a resident of or is domiciled on a reservation, but temporarily located off the reservation, from his parent or Indian custodian or the emergency placement of such child in a foster home or institution, under applicable State law, in order to prevent imminent physical damage or harm to the child. The State authority, official, or agency involved shall insure that the emergency removal or placement terminates immediately when such removal or placement is no longer necessary to prevent imminent physical damage or harm to the child and shall expeditiously initiate a child custody proceeding subject to the provisions of this subchapter, transfer the child to the jurisdiction of the appropriate Indian tribe, or restore the child to the parent or Indian custodian, as may be appropriate.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
51
cases (
13 in the last 5 years), 1984–2025 · leading case:
In re S.R., 436 P.3d 696 (Mont. 2019).
In re S.R., 436 P.3d 696 (Mont. 2019).
· cites it 7× “See 25 U.S.C. § 1922 . The Court's explanation is confusing, however, because the term EPS, and the various Montana statutes explaining EPS, encompass actions that are both emergency removals and foster care placement proceedings under ICWA.”
People in Interest of M.V, 2018 COA 163 (Colo. Ct. App. 2018).
“25 U.S.C. § 1922 (2018) specifically provides that ICWA should not be construed to 17 prevent the emergency removal of an Indian child who is a resident of or domiciled on a reservation, or the emergency placement of the child in foster care when necessary to prevent imminent…”
In re H.T., 2015 MT 41 (Mont. 2015).
· cites it 4× “25 U.S.C. § 1922 . 3 Fort Belknap sent a letter dated April 17, 2013, confirming H.”
Matter of NL, 754 P.2d 863 (Okla. 1988).
· cites it 4× “1, and the failure of the proceedings to conform to 25 U.S.C. § 1922 , are errors of such a magnitude as to require reversal of the proceedings.”
Carney v. Moore, 754 P.2d 863 (Okla. 1988).
· cites it 4× “1, and the failure of the proceedings to conform to 25 U.S.C. § 1922 , are errors of such a magnitude as to require reversal of the proceedings.”
Oglala Sioux Tribe v. Van Hunnik, 993 F. Supp. 2d 1017 (D.S.D. 2014).
· cites it 6× “Claim II: 25 U.S.C. § 1922 Defendants contend plaintiffs’ claim for relief under 25 U.”
In Re David H., 165 Cal. App. 4th 1626 (Cal. Ct. App. 2008).
“1, 2008]; [7] 25 U.S.C. § 1922 ; Guidelines for State Courts; *1634 Indian Child Custody Proceedings (44 Fed.”
In re Dependency of Z.J.G., 471 P.3d 853 (Wash. 2020).
“” 25 U.S.C. § 1922 ; RCW 13.38.140(2). With the correct “reason to know” finding, ICWA and WICWA standards should have applied to this case “until it [was] determined on the record that the child[ren did] not meet the definition of an ‘Indian child.”
Desiree F. v. Daniel F., 99 Cal. Rptr. 2d 688 (Cal. Ct. App. 2000).
“( 25 U.S.C. § 1922 ; rule 1439(i) & 0)0 In determining any placement of Desiree, including emergency, foster care, or adoptive, the juvenile court is required to follow the placement preferences set forth in the ICWA.”
In re E.G.M., 750 S.E.2d 857 (N.C. Ct. App. 2013).
· cites it 2× “” 25 U.S.C. § 1922 (2012). Here, however, the district court did not purport to exercise emergency jurisdiction over Ellen, nor did it relinquish jurisdiction as contemplated by 25 U.”
State Ex Rel. Juv. Dep't v. Charles, 688 P.2d 1354 (Or. Ct. App. 1984).
“” 2 25 USC § 1922 provides: “Nothing in this subchapter shall be construed to prevent the emergency removal of an Indian child who is a resident of or is domiciled on a reservation, but temporarily located off the reservation, from his parent or Indian custodian or the emergency…”
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.