Rule 28.07 - Particularized Findings in Cases Involving an Indian ChildSubd.1. Emergency Proceedings. In emergency proceedings involving an Indian child, the court shall make initial findings regarding whether active efforts were made by the social services agency, pursuant to Minn. Stat. § 260.762, to prevent the child's out-of-home placement. Emergency proceedings shall not be continued for more than 30 days unless the court makes findings pursuant to the Indian Child Welfare Act regulations, 25 C.F.R. § 23.113(e). Subd. 2. Emergency Removal and Placement Authority for Indian Child Ward, Resident, or Domiciliary.(a)Finding. If the district court finds from review of the petition or other information that an Indian child resides or is domiciled on an Indian reservation or that an Indian child is a ward of tribal court but is temporarily located off the reservation, the district court may order emergency removal of the child from the child's parent or Indian custodian and emergency out of home placement.(b)Required Actions for Ward of the Tribal Court. If the district court finds from review of the petition or other information that an Indian child is a ward of tribal court, the court shall order that the child be expeditiously returned to the jurisdiction of the Indian child's tribe and shall consult with the tribal court regarding the child's safe transition pursuant to Rule 31.02, subd. 1.Subd. 3. Child in Need of Protection or Services Proceedings. In a child in need of protection or services proceeding, the standard of proof is clear and convincing evidence. Foster care placement shall not be ordered in the absence of testimony of at least one qualified expert witness that supports a determination 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.Subd. 4. Permanency Proceedings.(a)Termination of Parental Rights. Pursuant to the Indian Child Welfare Act, 25 U.S.C. § 1912(f), in a termination of parental rights matter involving an Indian child, the standard of proof is beyond a reasonable doubt. The court shall make specific findings regarding the following:(1)Active Efforts. That active efforts have been made to provide remedial services and rehabilitative programs designed to prevent the breakup of the Indian family and that these efforts have proved unsuccessful.(2)Serious Emotional or Physical Damage. 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, as supported by qualified expert witness testimony in the termination of parental rights proceeding pursuant to Rule 28.06.(b)Other Permanency Proceedings. In permanency proceedings involving an Indian child other than termination of parental rights, the standard of proof is clear and convincing evidence. The court shall make specific findings regarding the following:(1)Active Efforts. That active efforts have been made to provide remedial services and rehabilitative programs designed to prevent the breakup of the Indian family and that these efforts have proved unsuccessful.(2)Serious Emotional or Physical Damage. 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, as supported by qualified expert witness testimony pursuant to Rule 28.06.Minn. Juve. Prot. P. 28.07