54 Cited authorities

Shaw v. Delta Air Lines, Inc.
463 U.S. 85 (1983) Cited 3,511 times 18 Legal Analyses
Holding that federal common law of ERISA preempts state law in the interpretation of ERISA benefit plans
Miss. Choctaw Indian Band v. Holyfield
490 U.S. 30 (1989) Cited 1,633 times 3 Legal Analyses
Holding that the Indian Tribe had exclusive jurisdiction over child custody proceedings, even though the children were born off the reservation, because the children were “domiciled” on the reservation for purposes of the ICWA
Crosby v. Nat'l Foreign Trade Council
530 U.S. 363 (2000) Cited 983 times 9 Legal Analyses
Holding that a state Burma sanctions bill conflicted with a federal Burma sanctions bill because it undermined Congress's delegation to the President of "flexible and effective authority" to adjust all sanctions in response to changing conditions
In re S.B
32 Cal.4th 1287 (Cal. 2004) Cited 1,474 times
Holding that dependency matters are not exempt from the rule that "a reviewing court ordinarily will not consider a challenge to a ruling if an objection could have been but was not made in the trial court"
In re Kristin H.
46 Cal.App.4th 1635 (Cal. Ct. App. 1996) Cited 837 times
Finding a mother's suicide attempt posed a risk of harm to her young child
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"
In re Francisco W.
139 Cal.App.4th 695 (Cal. Ct. App. 2006) Cited 455 times
Finding that section 366.26, subdivision provides a mechanism by which a child may request the reinstatement of parental rights
In re Riva M.
235 Cal.App.3d 403 (Cal. Ct. App. 1991) Cited 554 times
Finding the father forfeited any error in the use of the clear-and-convincing standard and the failure to require expert testimony by not objecting
In re W.B.
55 Cal.4th 30 (Cal. 2012) Cited 288 times
Describing ICWA's procedural and substantive requirements
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
Section 1901 - Congressional findings
25 U.S.C. § 1901 Cited 4,757 times 7 Legal Analyses
Finding that “an alarmingly high percentage of [Indian] children are placed in non-Indian . . . adoptive homes”
Section 1912 - Pending court proceedings
25 U.S.C. § 1912 Cited 3,116 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"
Section 1903 - Definitions
25 U.S.C. § 1903 Cited 2,833 times 3 Legal Analyses
Defining "Indian" as encompassing only members of federally recognized tribes
Section 1902 - Congressional declaration of policy
25 U.S.C. § 1902 Cited 1,361 times 3 Legal Analyses
Recognizing the importance of culture when placing Indian children in foster care
Section 1911 - Indian tribe jurisdiction over Indian child custody proceedings
25 U.S.C. § 1911 Cited 1,117 times
Granting tribal courts only concurrent jurisdiction where the Indian child is "not domiciled or residing within the reservation"
Section 1914 - Petition to court of competent jurisdiction to invalidate action upon showing of certain violations
25 U.S.C. § 1914 Cited 686 times
Granting parents and Indian custodians alike the right to petition a court to invalidate child custody proceedings in violation of ICWA
Section 9 - Regulations by President
25 U.S.C. § 9 Cited 59 times
Delegating authority to the executive to "prescribe such regulations as [the President] may think fit for carrying into effect the various provisions of any act relating to Indian affairs, and for settlement of the accounts of Indian affairs"
Rule 8.520 - Briefs by parties and amici curiae; judicial notice
Cal. R. 8.520 Cited 3,160 times
(a)Parties' briefs; time to file (1) Within 30 days after the Supreme Court files the order of review, the petitioner must serve and file in that court either an opening brief on the merits or the brief it filed in the Court of Appeal. (2) Within 30 days after the petitioner files its brief or the time to do so expires, the opposing party must serve and file either an answer brief on the merits or the brief it filed in the Court of Appeal. (3) The petitioner may file a reply brief on the merits or
Rule 8.406 - Time to appeal
Cal. R. 8.406 Cited 254 times
(a)Normal time (1) Except as provided in (2) and (3), a notice of appeal must be filed within 60 days after the rendition of the judgment or the making of the order being appealed. (A) In matters heard by a referee not acting as a temporary judge, a notice of appeal must be filed within 60 days after the referee's order becomes final under rule 5.540(c). (B) When an application for rehearing of an order of a referee not acting as a temporary judge is denied under rule 5.542, a notice of appeal from

IN RE ISAIAH W.

54 Cited authorities

Holding that federal common law of ERISA preempts state law in the interpretation of ERISA benefit plans

Holding that the Indian Tribe had exclusive jurisdiction over child custody proceedings, even though the children were born off the reservation, because the children were “domiciled” on the reservation for purposes of the ICWA

Holding that a state Burma sanctions bill conflicted with a federal Burma sanctions bill because it undermined Congress's delegation to the President of "flexible and effective authority" to adjust all sanctions in response to changing conditions

Holding that dependency matters are not exempt from the rule that "a reviewing court ordinarily will not consider a challenge to a ruling if an objection could have been but was not made in the trial court"

Finding a mother's suicide attempt posed a risk of harm to her young child

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"

Finding that section 366.26, subdivision provides a mechanism by which a child may request the reinstatement of parental rights

Finding the father forfeited any error in the use of the clear-and-convincing standard and the failure to require expert testimony by not objecting

Describing ICWA's procedural and substantive requirements

Concluding that the "minimal showing" required to trigger notice under the ICWA is merely evidence "suggest[ing]" the minor "may" be an Indian child

Finding that “an alarmingly high percentage of [Indian] children are placed in non-Indian . . . adoptive homes”

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"

Defining "Indian" as encompassing only members of federally recognized tribes

Recognizing the importance of culture when placing Indian children in foster care

Granting tribal courts only concurrent jurisdiction where the Indian child is "not domiciled or residing within the reservation"

Granting parents and Indian custodians alike the right to petition a court to invalidate child custody proceedings in violation of ICWA

Delegating authority to the executive to "prescribe such regulations as [the President] may think fit for carrying into effect the various provisions of any act relating to Indian affairs, and for settlement of the accounts of Indian affairs"