§Why CasetextPricing

IN RE W.B.

Appellant's Opening Brief on the Merits

29 Cited authorities

  1. In re Desiree F.

    83 Cal.App.4th 460 (Cal. Ct. App. 2000)   Cited 602 times
    Finding it was "the duty of the Fresno County Department of Social Services to notify the Tribe or the Secretary" and invalidating court orders due to "the failure of the respective county welfare agencies and juvenile courts to comply with the clear provisions of the ICWA"

  2. In re S.B.

    130 Cal.App.4th 1148 (Cal. Ct. App. 2005)   Cited 386 times
    Holding that not all provisions of ICWA apply to a detention/emergency removal hearing

  3. Dwayne P. v. Superior Court

    103 Cal.App.4th 247 (Cal. Ct. App. 2002)   Cited 370 times
    Concluding that the "minimal showing" required to trigger notice under the ICWA is merely evidence "suggest[ing]" the minor "may" be an Indian child

  4. In re Antoinette S.

    104 Cal.App.4th 1401 (Cal. Ct. App. 2002)   Cited 308 times
    Holding that violations of the 25 U.S.C.A. § 1912 waiting period are not jurisdictional and reasoning that “if error were to strip a court of its jurisdiction ..., then the juvenile court would lose all authority over the dependent child in its care, requiring immediate return of the child to parents who have demonstrated at least temporary unfitness”

  5. People v. Anderson

    50 Cal.4th 19 (Cal. 2010)   Cited 235 times
    Requiring payment of restitution "renders defendant accountable for the financial harm he caused and contributes to his reformation and rehabilitation"

  6. In re Kahlen W.

    233 Cal.App.3d 1414 (Cal. Ct. App. 1991)   Cited 408 times
    Rejecting forfeiture argument; "[w]hile we recognize the need for timely resolution of child custody proceedings, respondent cannot benefit from the delay it created"

  7. In re H.B.

    161 Cal.App.4th 115 (Cal. Ct. App. 2008)   Cited 250 times
    Holding the court erred in failing to ensure compliance with ICWA inquiry requirements

  8. In re Nikki R.

    106 Cal.App.4th 844 (Cal. Ct. App. 2003)   Cited 271 times
    Relying on Antoinette S. and Dwayne P. for proposition that court needs only "a suggestion of Indian ancestry to trigger the notice requirement"; mother reported child's father had Cherokee heritage

  9. In re A.B.

    164 Cal.App.4th 832 (Cal. Ct. App. 2008)   Cited 170 times
    Granting extension for augmentation in juvenile appeal proceeding under rule 8.416(f), on showing of good cause

  10. Imperial Merchant Ser. v. Hunt

    47 Cal.4th 381 (Cal. 2009)   Cited 148 times
    Distinguishing cases where intent to create exclusive remedy rested only on an assumption to that effect, or an inference drawn from rules of statutory construction

  11. Section 1901 - Congressional findings

    25 U.S.C. § 1901   Cited 4,754 times   7 Legal Analyses
    Finding that “an alarmingly high percentage of [Indian] children are placed in non-Indian . . . adoptive homes”

  12. Section 1912 - Pending court proceedings

    25 U.S.C. § 1912   Cited 3,114 times   6 Legal Analyses
    Prohibiting foster care placement unless a State presents evidence from "qualified expert witnesses ... that the continued custody of the child by the parent or Indian custodian is likely to result in serious emotional or physical damage to the child"

  13. Section 1903 - Definitions

    25 U.S.C. § 1903   Cited 2,830 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Defining "Indian" as encompassing only members of federally recognized tribes

  14. Section 1902 - Congressional declaration of policy

    25 U.S.C. § 1902   Cited 1,358 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Recognizing the importance of culture when placing Indian children in foster care

  15. Section 1911 - Indian tribe jurisdiction over Indian child custody proceedings

    25 U.S.C. § 1911   Cited 1,115 times
    Granting tribal courts only concurrent jurisdiction where the Indian child is "not domiciled or residing within the reservation"

  16. Section 1921 - Higher State or Federal standard applicable to protect rights of parent or Indian custodian of Indian child

    25 U.S.C. § 1921   Cited 180 times
    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”

  17. Section 191 - Repealed

    25 U.S.C. § 191

    25 U.S.C. § 191 Oct. 31, 1951, ch. 654, §1(51), 65 Stat. 703 Section, acts July 1, 1898, ch. 545, §6, 30 Stat. 596; June 25, 1910, ch. 431, §22, 36 Stat. 861, related to transfer or sale of Government property at reservations.

  18. Rule 5.481 - Inquiry and notice

    Cal. R. 5.481   Cited 1,483 times

    (a) Inquiry The court, court-connected investigator, and party seeking a foster-care placement, guardianship, conservatorship, custody placement under Family Code section 3041, declaration freeing a child from the custody or control of one or both parents, termination of parental rights, preadoptive placement, or adoption have an affirmative and continuing duty to inquire whether a child is or may be an Indian child in all proceedings identified in rule 5.480. The court, court-connected investigator

  19. Rule 5.482 - Proceedings after notice

    Cal. R. 5.482   Cited 156 times

    (a)Timing of Proceedings (1) If it is known or there is reason to know a child is an Indian child, a court hearing that may result in a foster care placement, termination of parental rights, preadoptive placement, or adoptive placement must not proceed until at least 10 days after the parent, Indian custodian, the tribe, or the Bureau of Indian Affairs has received notice, except as stated in sections (a)(2) and (3). (2) The detention hearing in dependency cases and in delinquency cases in which

  20. Rule 5.480 - Application

    Cal. R. 5.480   Cited 93 times

    This chapter addressing the Indian Child Welfare Act (25 U.S.C. § 1901 et seq.) as codified in various sections of the Family Code, Probate Code, and Welfare and Institutions Code, applies to most proceedings involving Indian children that may result in an involuntary foster care placement; guardianship or conservatorship placement; custody placement under Family Code section 3041; declaration freeing a child from the custody and control of one or both parents; termination of parental rights; preadoptive

  21. Rule 5.484 - Emergency proceedings involving an Indian child

    Cal. R. 5.484   Cited 60 times

    (a)Standards for removal Whenever it is known or there is reason to know the case involves an Indian child, the court may not order an emergency removal or placement of the child without a finding that the removal or placement is necessary to prevent imminent physical damage or harm to the child. The petition requesting emergency removal or continued emergency placement of the child or its accompanying documents must contain the following: (1) A statement of the risk of imminent physical damage or