39 Cited authorities

  1. Miss. Choctaw Indian Band v. Holyfield

    490 U.S. 30 (1989)   Cited 1,276 times   2 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
  2. In re S.B

    32 Cal.4th 1287 (Cal. 2004)   Cited 777 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"
  3. In re Jasmon O

    8 Cal.4th 398 (Cal. 1994)   Cited 677 times
    Rejecting the argument that because the government "caused the child to be placed in a foster home, created the child's bonds to the foster parents, and disrupted the child's potential bond with the father, it would be fundamentally unfair to terminate the father's parental rights even if it would be detrimental to the child to be returned to his care."
  4. California Coastal Comm'n v. Granite Rock Co.

    480 U.S. 572 (1987)   Cited 174 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"
  5. In re Desiree F.

    83 Cal.App.4th 460 (Cal. Ct. App. 2000)   Cited 332 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"
  6. In re A.A.

    167 Cal.App.4th 1292 (Cal. Ct. App. 2008)   Cited 227 times
    Holding in a dependency case that appellants could not challenge a prior order for which the deadline to appeal had already expired
  7. In re W.B.

    55 Cal.4th 30 (Cal. 2012)   Cited 194 times
    Discussing the various options available to the court
  8. In re Riva M.

    235 Cal.App.3d 403 (Cal. Ct. App. 1991)   Cited 321 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
  9. Dwayne P. v. Superior Court

    103 Cal.App.4th 247 (Cal. Ct. App. 2002)   Cited 216 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
  10. In re Marinna J.

    90 Cal.App.4th 731 (Cal. Ct. App. 2001)   Cited 196 times
    Holding parents' ICWA violation claim cognizable on appeal although not raised until after parental rights were terminated
  11. Section 1901 - Congressional findings

    25 U.S.C. § 1901   Cited 2,497 times   7 Legal Analyses
    Finding "there is no resource that is more vital to the continued existence and integrity of Indian tribes than their children"
  12. Section 1912 - Pending court proceedings

    25 U.S.C. § 1912   Cited 1,943 times   6 Legal Analyses
    Requiring a State seeking to effect foster care placement of an Indian child to "satisfy the court that active efforts have been made to provide remedial services and rehabilitative programs designed to prevent the breakup of the Indian family and these efforts have proved unsuccessful"
  13. Section 1903 - Definitions

    25 U.S.C. § 1903   Cited 1,402 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Defining "reservation" with reference to 18 U.S.C. § 1151, as well as trust land
  14. Section 1902 - Congressional declaration of policy

    25 U.S.C. § 1902   Cited 706 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 636 times
    Granting tribal courts only concurrent jurisdiction where the Indian child is "not domiciled or residing within the reservation"
  16. Section 1914 - Petition to court of competent jurisdiction to invalidate action upon showing of certain violations

    25 U.S.C. § 1914   Cited 387 times
    Granting parents and Indian custodians alike the right to petition a court to invalidate child custody proceedings in violation of ICWA
  17. Section 9 - Regulations by President

    25 U.S.C. § 9   Cited 32 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"
  18. Rule 8.500 - Petition for review

    Cal. R. 8.500   Cited 238 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

  19. Rule 8.406 - Time to appeal

    Cal. R. 8.406   Cited 169 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. (2) 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). (3) 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

  20. Rule 8.504 - Form and contents of petition, answer, and reply

    Cal. R. 8.504   Cited 15 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)