39 Cited authorities

Miss. Choctaw Indian Band v. Holyfield
490 U.S. 30 (1989) Cited 1,632 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
In re S.B
32 Cal.4th 1287 (Cal. 2004) Cited 1,472 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 Jasmon O
8 Cal.4th 398 (Cal. 1994) Cited 1,326 times
Finding "substantial new evidence" to support the juvenile courts "decision to set aside the previous order as not in the best interests of the 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 A.A.
167 Cal.App.4th 1292 (Cal. Ct. App. 2008) Cited 340 times
Holding in a dependency case that appellants could not challenge a prior order for which the deadline to appeal had already expired
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 285 times
Describing ICWA's procedural and substantive requirements
Dwayne P. v. Superior Court
103 Cal.App.4th 247 (Cal. Ct. App. 2002) Cited 369 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
In re Marinna J.
90 Cal.App.4th 731 (Cal. Ct. App. 2001) Cited 381 times
Holding parents' ICWA violation claim cognizable on appeal although not raised until after parental rights were terminated
California Coastal Comm'n v. Granite Rock Co.
480 U.S. 572 (1987) Cited 187 times
Holding that state permit requirements were not preempted by federal law, and stating that the party arguing in favor of preemption would have to demonstrate " that there is no possible set of conditions that the [state] could place on its permit that would not conflict with federal law — that any state permit requirement is per se preempted"
Section 1901 - Congressional findings
25 U.S.C. § 1901 Cited 4,734 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 3,109 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 2,819 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 1,356 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 1,114 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 682 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 8.500 - Petition for review
Cal. R. 8.500 Cited 337 times
(a)Right to file a petition, answer, or reply (1) A party may file a petition in the Supreme Court for review of any decision of the Court of Appeal, including any interlocutory order, except the denial of a transfer of a case within the appellate jurisdiction of the superior court. (2) A party may file an answer responding to the issues raised in the petition. In the answer, the party may ask the court to address additional issues if it grants review. (3) The petitioner may file a reply to the answer
Rule 8.406 - Time to appeal
Cal. R. 8.406 Cited 252 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
Rule 8.504 - Form and contents of petition, answer, and reply
Cal. R. 8.504 Cited 21 times
(a)In general Except as provided in this rule, a petition for review, answer, and reply must comply with the relevant provisions of rule 8.204. (Subd (a) amended effective January 1, 2007.) (b) Contents of a petition (1) The body of the petition must begin with a concise, nonargumentative statement of the issues presented for review, framing them in terms of the facts of the case but without unnecessary detail. (2) The petition must explain how the case presents a ground for review under rule 8.500(b)

IN RE ISAIAH W.

39 Cited authorities

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 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 "substantial new evidence" to support the juvenile courts "decision to set aside the previous order as not in the best interests of the 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"

Holding in a dependency case that appellants could not challenge a prior order for which the deadline to appeal had already expired

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

Holding parents' ICWA violation claim cognizable on appeal although not raised until after parental rights were terminated

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"