Indian Child Welfare Act

869:, the mother in this case lived on the reservation both before and after the birth of the children off-reservation. The Supreme Court found that the children were classified as "domiciled" on the reservation because their biological mother was domiciled there. It ruled that the exclusive jurisdiction of the tribal court under ICWA should have been invoked. The case was remanded to the tribal court for a custody determination three years after the twins had been placed with non-Indian adoptive parents. Noting the potential disruption in the twins' lives, the Supreme Court said that any potential harm could have been avoided if the parents and state court had not wrongfully denied the tribe its rights under ICWA. 629: 741:

dramatic improvement in outcome for both the child and the family. The tribes focus on remediation and rehabilitative services to protect the family, and offer unique services geared to tribal values, to help parents understand their roles as parents in the culture. Early intervention and support helps caregivers and families achieve better outcomes by addressing parenting skills, addictions, domestic violence, and housing instability. Results in a study of intervention/support indicated 81% of cases preserved the existing family, or placed the child with extended family within the tribe. By working with ICWA and the tribes to create preventative services that are

431:

tribal survival by removing children at such a high rate. The process also damaged the emotional lives of many children, who lost touch with their people and culture, as adults testified who had been through the process. Congress recognized this, and stated that the interests of tribal stability were as important as the best interests of the child. One of the factors in this judgment was a recognition that, because of the differences in culture, what was in the best interest of a non-Native child was not necessarily what was in the best interest of a Native child. The latter traditionally have larger extended families and tribal relationships in their culture.

29: 1070:. In 2017 a Texas state court terminated the parental rights of both the biological parents. Under the provisions of the ICWA, the Navajo Nation stepped in and sought to place the child with a Navajo family, but that failed and the Brackeens were allowed to adopt the child. The Brackeens later attempted to adopt the boy's sister in state court, but the girl's extended family also sought to take in the girl. The Brackeens then filed suit in federal court to overturn the ICWA on the grounds of racial discrimination. This approach would "completely erase tribal sovereignty" according to Lauren van Schilfgaarde, a 658:

public or state-licensed agency involved in child protection services or family support has discovered information which suggests that the child is an Indian child. (III) The child who is the subject of the proceeding gives the court reason to believe he or she is an Indian child. (IV) The residence or domicile of the child, his or her biological parents, or the Indian custodian is known by the court to be or is shown to be a predominantly Indian community. (V) An officer of the court involved in the proceeding has knowledge that the child may be an Indian child.'

971:... we want to express our grave concern that the objectives of the ICWA continue to be frustrated by State court created judicial exceptions to the ICWA. We are concerned that State court judges who have created the "existing Indian family exception" are delving into the sensitive and complicated areas of Indian cultural values, customs and practices which under existing law have been left exclusively to the judgment of Indian tribes ... We oppose any legislative recognition of the concept. 1015:

soon as he learned about it. The couple seeking to adopt the girl failed to notify the father for four months after filing papers to complete the action. Brown sought to block the adoption and gain custody of his daughter, actions supported by the two South Carolina state courts that had reviewed the case. They ruled that his "waiver of his parental rights was invalid ... because the adoptive couple 'did not follow the clear procedural directives' of the federal law."

1026:

girl, in violation of state laws and the ICWA, although the state and courts had warned them that the Choctaw Nation of Oklahoma had jurisdiction and that the goal of family reunification was paramount. The couple was represented by an attorney who has challenged tribal jurisdiction in other ICWA cases. The couple refused to release the girl in 2016, despite a court order, and the state had to remove her, to much publicity.

934:

essentializing any ethnic or racial group. However, ICWA's overall design, including its "good cause" threshold in 25 U.S.C. 1915, ensures that all interests—those of both natural parents, the tribe, the child, and the prospective adoptive parents—are appropriately considered and safeguarded. ICWA applies to this state court child custody proceeding involving A.J.S., and the Cherokee Nation must be permitted to intervene.

646:. Notification must contain all the requisite information identified in 25 CFR § 23.111 and be sent by registered or certified mail with return receipt requested, and the parties notified have the right to an additional 20 days to prepare prior to the proceeding. Failure to provide such notice can cause a jurisdictional defect that may result in any such proceeding to be overturned. 561:

state courts have no jurisdiction over the adoption or custody of Native children residing within their own tribal reservation. An "Indian child" is "any unmarried person who is under age eighteen and is either (a) a member of an Indian tribe or (b) is eligible for membership in an Indian tribe and is the biological child of a member of an Indian tribe."

980:"Foster care placement" is defined as "any action removing an Indian child from its parent or Indian custodian for temporary placement in a foster home or institution or the home of a guardian or conservator where the parent or Indian custodian cannot have the child returned upon demand, but where parental rights have not been terminated". 620:

would include custody proceedings involving Native children who do not reside or are not domiciled on the tribal lands (such as someone born off the reservation and whose parents do not live on the reservation). In these concurrent decisions, the ICWA expresses a preference for tribal jurisdiction in Native child custody proceedings.

1161:

explores the aftermath of the adoption of a Cherokee child by a non-Native parent under emergency conditions. It also looks at related issues among the people of her tribe, the history of ICWA, and its effects through other characters. It also explores ICWA in terms of tribal jurisdiction over Native

1014:

South Carolina was ordered to review the facts of the case under the new standard limiting the father's rights. The Court's majority decision did not address the fact that the girl's mother, who is not Native American, had attempted to hide the proposed adoption from the father, who sought custody as

472:

which advocates bonding with at least one adult as a parent figure. This did not take into consideration the tribal culture of the extended tribal family, in which children could have close relationships with members of the extended family. The common Native American practices of having a child cared

430:

showed that, in some cases, the per capita rate of Native children in foster care was nearly 16 times higher than the rate for non-Natives. The tribes said that such removal demonstrated lack of understanding by child welfare workers of the role of extended families in tribal culture, and threatened

1025:

In 2017 the Supreme Court declined to intervene in settling jurisdiction in the case of a Choctaw girl who had been placed in foster care with a non-Indian family in California after her natural parents were unable to care for her, ending nearly six years of litigation. The couple tried to adopt the

888:

has been relied upon by courts and parties both to support and reject the existing Indian family exception, which has been invoked in proceedings involving Indian children and families who are living off the reservation and who are, therefore, subject to state court jurisdiction concurrent with that

657:

The circumstances under which a juvenile court has reason to believe that a child is an Indian child include, but are not limited to, the following: '(I) Any party to the case, Indian tribe, Indian organization or public or private agency informs the court that the child is an Indian child. (II) Any

619:

Concurrent jurisdiction is shared jurisdiction between the tribal courts and the state courts. State courts have been severely criticized for ignoring the requirements of the law. In all cases that the tribal court does not have exclusive jurisdiction, they have concurrent jurisdiction. These cases

418:

ICWA was enacted in 1978 because of the disproportionately high rate of forced removal of Native children from their traditional homes and essentially from Native American cultures as a whole. Before enactment, as many as 35 percent of all Native children were being removed, usually forcibly, mostly

1010:

man, "could not rely upon the language of a federal statute, the Indian Child Welfare Act, to protect himself against the termination of his parental rights over his daughter, Veronica, after another couple sought to adopt her." The Court remanded the case to the South Carolina State Supreme Court,

812:

held that the ICWA " was not to dictate that an illegitimate infant who has never been a member of an Indian home or culture, and probably never would be, should be removed from its primary cultural heritage and placed in an Indian environment over the express objections of its non-Indian mother."

753:

A state court may decline to transfer a case for "good cause", but that term is not defined in the ICWA. The BIA has issued an advisory set of guidelines for state courts to use in determining "good cause". While these guidelines are not mandatory, many states have adopted them, and they include:

722:

A biological parent, whether Indian or non-Indian, may object to and veto a proposed transfer of a case to tribal court. A prospective parent, the Indian child, or another party may object, but may not veto a transfer, and those objections would be covered under the "good cause" provision. In the

692:

The tribe and parents or Indian custodian of the Indian child have an unqualified right to intervene in a case involving foster care placement or the termination of parental rights. The intervention may be at any time, and not just at the beginning of the proceedings. This right does not apply to

938:

In June 2016, the Department of Interior specifically rejected the "existing Indian family" exception. The regulations reflect that courts that rejected the doctrine were correct to do so, and that "Congress did not intend to limit ICWA's applicability to those Tribal citizens actively involved in

731:

The tribal court may decline to accept the transfer of a case from a state court. An example is when the parents move to transfer the case, but the tribe declines to accept jurisdiction due to a lack of funding for programs that would support the child and the parents at the tribal level but that

706:

In a foster care or termination of parental rights case where the tribe and the state exercise concurrent jurisdiction, the tribe, either biological parent, or the Indian custodian may move to transfer the case from the state court to the tribal court. The ICWA technically allows transfer to the

641:

In an involuntary proceeding, the party seeking the placement of the child, which is often but not always the state, must notify both the parent(s) and/or Indian custodian(s) and the child's tribe at least 10 days prior to the proceeding. Emergency proceedings may follow state law, but proceedings

451:

State child-welfare standards for assessing the fitness of Indian families; 2) systematic due-process violations against both Indian children and their parents during child-custody procedures; 3) economic incentives favoring removal of Indian children from their families and communities; and 4)

947:

Some critics have complained that the existing Indian family exception requires the state court to determine what it means to be an Indian child or an Indian family, by applying tests to determine the "Indian-ness" of the child. One such test involved evaluating if the child lived "in an 'actual

683:

In a removal case, the party seeking the removal (normally Child Protective Services or similar agency) is required to make active efforts to provide the parent or custodian with remedial and rehabilitative services designed to prevent the removal of the child from the Indian family. The "active

740:

ICWA requires that active efforts be made with the existing family to rehabilitate the root cause of problems prior to removal of the child. Many tribes are focusing on intercession prior to crisis. By engaging at-risk families, and providing services, they may be able to heal the family, with a

649:

The ICWA case may be dismissed for lack of due process if not for the lack of jurisdiction "because ' "failure to give proper notice of a dependency proceeding to a tribe with which the dependent child may be affiliated forecloses the participation by the tribe, notice requirements are strictly

564:

ICWA applies to a "child custody proceeding" involving a Native child. The term "child custody proceeding" involves: (i) "foster care placements", where the child has been placed in a foster home, and the parent cannot have the child returned upon demand, but where parental rights have not been

560:

ICWA sets minimum Federal standards for nearly all Native child custody proceedings, including adoption, voluntary and involuntary termination of parental rights, and removal and foster care placement of Native children, but excluding divorce and child delinquency proceedings. ICWA provides that

585:

Under ICWA, a Native tribe has exclusive jurisdiction over a Native child who resides or is domiciled within the tribe's land. This includes both reservation land, other tribal lands that are held in trust by the Federal government for the benefit of a tribe or individual, or held by a tribe or

463:

that removed Native children from their tribes and placed them into church members' homes. By the 1970s, approximately 5,000 Native children were living in Mormon homes. The lack of knowledge about Native American culture by most social workers also contributed to the high removal rates. Most

568:

ICWA does not cover child custody hearings during divorce proceedings. Nor does ICWA cover cases of child delinquency when the child has done something that would be considered a crime if done by an adult. Because Native tribes play a major part in the upbringing of Native children, which is

442:

I think the cruelest trick that the white man has ever done to Indian children is to take them into adoption court, erase all of their records and send them off to some nebulous family ... residing in a white community and he goes back to the reservation and he has absolutely no idea who his

672:

In cases whereby the mother may not be a member of the tribe, however she is eligible, then before the provisions of ICWA apply, "the trial court must initially determine if a child is an Indian child within the meaning of ICWA." This is because "a parent's current enrollment is not always

933:

Given all of the foregoing, we hereby overrule Baby Boy L. (citation omitted), and abandon its existing Indian family doctrine. Indian heritage and the treatment of it has a unique history in United States law. A.J.S. has both Indian and non-Indian heritage, and courts are right to resist

473:

for by an extended relative was viewed as abandonment by allegedly well-intentioned, but arguably paternalistic, state social workers. But tribal members considered care by an extended family member to be normal behavior and a desirable way to ensure the child was cared for by family.

500:

Congress's overriding purpose in passing the ICWA was to protect Native culture and tribal integrity from the unnecessary removal of Native children by state and federal agencies. Awareness of the issues facing Native American children was raised by the advocacy and research by the

1887:, 199 P.3d 16, 31 (Colo. App. 2007) ("Accordingly, we affirm the trial court's holding that stepmother's failure to show active efforts as required by 25 U.S.C. § 1912(d) precludes termination of mother's parental rights through this stepparent adoption."). 1235:

Instead of one of the parties requesting rehearing, any member of the court may request that the entire court rehear the appeal, and if a majority of the judges agree, the court will order a rehearing by the entire court. One source indicates that the plaintiffs requested an

684:

effort" requirement also applies even if the party seeking removal is a private party, as in a private party adoption. The child may not be temporarily removed unless there is a likelihood of "serious emotional or physical damage" to the child if they remain in the home.

673:

dispositive of a child's membership in an Indian tribe". The finding in the case of the children involved was "In the matter of C.H. et al., 510 N.W.2d (S.D. 1993) that the MOWA Band of Choctaw Indians were held to be a Federally Recognized tribe for the purposes of ICWA.

668:

The MOWA Band of Choctaw Indians, a tribe that is federally recognized by the U.S. Federal Government but is not recognized for services of the Bureau of Indian Affairs under 25 C.F.R 83 et al., is used for precedent for many cases whereby the following conditions apply:

676:

The child may be provided an attorney, and the parents are entitled to one if they are indigent and cannot afford one. If the state does not have provisions for providing indigent parents an attorney, the Secretary of the Interior is to pay the attorney expenses.

948:

Indian dwelling,' apparently thinking of a teepee, hogan, or pueblo." Another work notes that "state courts have taken it upon themselves to determine individuals' relationship with their tribes by examining such contacts as subscription to a tribal newsletter."

1029:

The girl's father and other relatives had fought the adoption, and the state of California supported them and the tribe in placing the girl with Choctaw relatives. The girl was placed with relatives in Utah, who were raising two of her biological sisters.

1006:, the Supreme Court held that the heightened standard of deferring to tribal jurisdiction, required under § 1912(f) of ICWA does not apply when the parent in question never had physical or legal custody of the child. The Court ruled that Dusten Brown, a 1128:

On June 15, 2023, in a 7–2 vote, the Supreme Court affirmed the Fifth Circuit Court's decision, upholding the ICWA in full. Justice Amy Coney Barrett wrote the opinion for the Court, reaffirming the ICWA's consistency with Congress' authority per

745:, states can dramatically change outcomes of families who come to their attention. Such services need not be limited to tribal members, but are also available to foster and adoptive families to help them connect with the child's cultural roots. 476:

During congressional consideration, held at the request of Native American advocacy groups, opposition was raised by several states, the LDS Church, and several social welfare groups. The bill was pushed through by Representative

565:

terminated; (2) terminations of parental rights; (3) "preadoptive placements", which means placing the child in a foster home after the termination of parental rights, but before or instead of an adoption; and (4) adoptions.

2218:

Lewerenz, Dan; McCoy, Padraic. (2010) "The End of "Existing Indian Family", Jurisprudence: Holyfield at 20, In the Matter of A.J.S., and the Last Gasps of a Dying Doctrine," 36 Wm.Mit.L.R. 684 (William Mitchell College of

864:

consented to the voluntary termination of their parental rights and adoption of their twin infants by a non-Indian family. The unmarried parents were each Choctaw who were enrolled in the tribe. Unlike the parents in

3881: 707:

tribal court at any time in the proceeding, but state courts vary on how they view transfer requests after state court proceedings are well into the adjudication process. In some cases the state will look to the

1065:

boy was placed with Chad and Jennifer Brackeen, a former civil engineer and an anesthesiologist, respectively, after his Navajo mother (who lived in Texas) was found to be using drugs. The father of the child is

590:

that were transferred to individual Natives under various laws. The Native tribal courts also have exclusive jurisdiction over Native children who are wards of the court or tribe, regardless of their location.

917:

still use the "existing Indian family" exception. Alabama and Indiana have limited its application by further court decisions. Nineteen states have rejected the doctrine, either by court decision or statute.

1251:

Cherokee Nation, et al. v. Chad Everet Brackeen, et al.; The State of Texas v. Deb Haaland, Secretary of the Interior, et al.; and Chad Everet Brackeen, et al. v. Deb Haaland, Secretary of the Interior, et

1965:

Cavanagh, Michael F. (2010), "American Indian Law: State Court Administrative Office – Court Improvement Program: Indian Child Welfare Act Forum: October 6, 2008," 89 Mich. Bar Journal 23 (State Bar of

3196: 813:

Under the facts of the case, the court stated that the ICWA did not apply unless the child was part of an "existing Indian family unit", but this language was not part of the act. The court denied the

569:

significantly different than that of the parents, the ICWA gives important jurisdictional powers to Native tribes in order to preserve the Native culture and tribal future. Tribal courts hold either

1541: 761:

The proceeding was at an advanced stage when the transfer request was made, and the party asking for the transfer did not request the transfer promptly after receiving notice of the proceeding,

732:

are present at the state level. Note that a tribal court may not be a traditional tribunal, but may be any other administrative body empowered by the tribe to act on child custody matters.

2834: 494: 3744: 419:

from intact Native American families with extended family networks, and placed in predominantly non-Native homes, which had no relation to Native American cultures. In some cases, the

2624: 3554: 3844: 3660: 2911: 653:"The determination of a child's Indian status is up to the tribe; therefore, the juvenile court needs only a suggestion of Indian ancestry to trigger the notice requirement." 221: 427: 711:

to deny such a transfer based on that law's time standards. After a motion for transfer has been made, there is a presumption that the tribal court will receive the case.

2482: 2459: 4411: 3435: 828:

case, approximately half of the states adopted or expanded upon this "existing Indian family" exception, although such language was not part of the text of the ICWA.

1125:

Oral arguments for the case were heard on November 9, 2022. Many legal experts anticipated the Supreme Court would overturn or limit ICWA in response to this case.

4431: 2555: 39:

An Act to establish standards for the placement of Indian children in foster or adoptive homes, to prevent the break-up of Indian families, and for other purposes.

2268:

Davis, Toni Hahn (1993) "The Existing Indian Family Exception to the Indian Child Welfare Act," 69 N. Dak. L. Rev. 465 (University of North Dakota School of Law)

3696: 1181: 3732: 2236: 1097:. The court unanimously ruled that at least one party had standing to bring the suit, and a majority held that Congress had the authority to enact the ICWA. 846: 322: 299: 280: 824:

This case was the basis for development of a body of jurisprudence around the "existing Indian family" exception to ICWA. In the years following the Kansas

381:. It gives concurrent, but presumptive jurisdiction over foster care placement proceedings for Native American children who do not live on the reservation. 3507: 3387: 817:

the right to intervene in the case, stating that the ICWA did not apply. The court also held that even if the ICWA did apply, the trial court committed no

782:

Whether the proceeding is at an advanced stage, if the Indian parent, custodian, or tribe did not receive notice of the proceeding until an advanced stage;

522: 4343: 3708: 3363: 2509: 4451: 1538: 3719: 3459: 3223: 2232: 841: 778:

consider when determining whether good cause exists. These are binding regulations, effective as of December 12, 2016. The prohibited factors are:

600: 505:. Congress reasoned that "there is no resource that is more vital to the continued existence and integrity of Indian tribes than their children." 275: 217: 4446: 4421: 3785: 723:

event that a parent vetoes the transfer, the case will remain in state court. This is most commonly seen when one of the parents is non-Indian.

663:

Guidelines for State Courts; Indian Child Custody Proceedings (44 Federal Register 67584, 67586 (Nov. 26, 1979) (Guidelines); rule 1439(d)(2).)

456: 3339: 4426: 1130: 1118:, allotting one hour for oral argument. All four cases dealt with the same basic subject matter, but from the perspective of each individual 2892: 3749: 3724: 3443: 1087:

in support of the constitutionality of the ICWA. On January 22, 2020, the Court heard oral arguments. On April 6, 2021, the court issued a

642:

after that are controlled by ICWA. If the state cannot determine who the parent or the tribe is, then the state is required to notify the

2685: 1581: 2150: 447:

Congress recognized that four primary factors contributed to the high rates of Native child removal by states. These were 1) "a lack of

611:

over a case in which the parent was domiciled on the reservation, no matter what the parent's personal desires are in the custody case.

3379: 3175: 1061:, and individual plaintiffs, that sought to declare the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA) unconstitutional. In June 2016, a 10-month-old 493:

of South Dakota, who had authored the bill and previously contributed to founding the American Indian Policy Review Commission and the

1104:

decision of the Fifth Circuit Court, the United States, the State of Texas, the Cherokee Nation, and the Brackeens all petitioned the

4441: 4283: 4197: 2569: 4103: 3483: 604: 821:

because the non-Indian mother would have objected to the transfer of the case to a tribal court and, thus, defeated the transfer.

586:

individual subject to a restriction by the United States against alienation. The last two describe tribal lands such as those in

4264: 4118: 3869: 643: 526: 374: 1205:

Both the biological parents and the paternal grandmother supported the adoption by the Brackeens, but were opposed by the tribe.

4328: 4123: 3158: 1186: 502: 770:

The parents of an Indian child over the age of 5 are not available, and the child has had little or no contact with the tribe.

4318: 3765: 3690: 3666: 3236: 3087: 3066: 3011: 1652: 367: 2972: 4288: 3347: 3216: 2413: 1389: 4162: 4140: 3654: 3315: 1667: 1462:

H. Rep. No. 95-608, 95th Cong., 2d. Sess. (1978), reprinted in 1978 U.S. Code Cong. & Ad. News 7530, 1978 CIS H443-53

3150: 1114:. On February 28, 2022, the Court granted all four petitions. The Supreme Court consolidated the other three cases into 4174: 3874: 3702: 2072:

Lucero, N. M.; Bussey, M. (2012). "A collaborative and trauma-informed practice model for urban Indian child welfare".

1897: 1760: 1712: 1564: 1325: 1293: 1219: 1105: 1046: 956: 538: 347: 263: 167: 152: 136: 131: 3997: 3824: 3419: 3283: 1809: 1785: 521:

struck down parts of the law as unconstitutional, claiming that it mandated racial preference. In December 2018, the

1601: 4269: 4209: 4002: 3371: 2002:

Turner, C.M. (2016). "Implementing and defending the Indian Child Welfare Act through revised state requirements".

203: 2531: 1428: 4273: 4068: 3914: 3209: 1281: 423:(BIA) paid the states to remove Native children and to place them with non-Native families and religious groups. 109: 101: 4168: 4156: 3808: 3411: 3187: 2866: 2541: 1171: 1137: 708: 4416: 4058: 3966: 3642: 628: 3032:

The Indian Child Welfare Act Handbook: A Legal Guide to the Custody and Adoption of Native American Children

2824: 1778:

The Indian Child Welfare Act Handbook: A Legal Guide to the Custody and Adoption of Native American Children

1133:. Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito dissented on grounds that the ICWA infringed state sovereignty. 1077:

On November 7, 2019, the Fifth Circuit, at the request of one of the judges, ordered that the case be heard

4313: 4186: 3829: 3684: 3523: 3232: 998: 294: 1827:"Beyond Minimum Standards: Federal Requirements and State Interpretations of the Indian Child Welfare Act" 410:, but presumptive, jurisdiction over non-reservation Native Americans' foster care placement proceedings. 4113: 4108: 3961: 3839: 3624: 3145: 880:

case is relied upon as support for both sides of the debate over the "existing Indian family" exception:

836: 595: 435: 61: 4355: 3259: 1727:

Robert J. McCarthy, "The Indian Child Welfare Act: In the Best Interests of the Child and Tribe," 27/8

1268: 4192: 4078: 4033: 3618: 3545: 3403: 3163: 2835:

In 325-page opinion, en banc 5th Circuit splits on preference for tribes in Native American adoptions

952: 402:

over the case when the child resides on, or is domiciled on, the reservation, or when the child is a

94: 3167: 4278: 4241: 4214: 3987: 3770: 3648: 3475: 3119: 872:

While the Supreme Court did not consider the "existing Indian family" exception, some sources cite

518: 460: 420: 3201: 785:

Whether there have been prior proceedings involving the child in which transfer was not requested;

680:

All of the parties have the right to examine all documents and reports related to the proceeding.

4386: 3971: 3819: 3630: 814: 693:

pre-adoption or adoption proceedings unless it also includes the termination of parental rights.

574: 530: 407: 4436: 4376: 4083: 4018: 3834: 3737: 3612: 3491: 3395: 3331: 3291: 1635: 1618: 794:

Socioeconomic conditions or negative perceptions of tribal social services or judicial systems.

608: 570: 399: 236: 195: 2949: 4073: 3992: 3951: 3941: 3582: 3499: 3275: 2953: 2240: 2089: 2054: 2011: 1413:

Johnson, Troy R. (1999), "The State and the American Indian: Who Gets the Indian Child?," 14

850: 767:

It would cause undue hardship on the parties and/or witnesses to travel to a tribal court, or

326: 303: 284: 180: 28: 4220: 4135: 4093: 4088: 3267: 1550: 1176: 809: 742: 443:

relatives are, and they effectively make him a non-person and I think ... they destroy him.

318: 8: 4038: 4028: 4023: 3907: 3775: 3251: 2625:

US Supreme Court to hear Brackeen v. Haaland, a case challenging Indian Child Welfare Act

1343:""The Past Never Vanishes": A Contextual Critique of the Existing Indian Family Doctrine" 1094: 1083:. Once ordered, 486 Indian tribes, 59 American Indian organizations, and 26 states filed 1041: 714:

The state court is required to make the transfer unless one of three factors is present:

543: 448: 313: 3137: 2912:"Supreme Court upholds adoption law aiming to keep Native American children with tribes" 171: 156: 16:

1978 U.S. federal law regulating tribal jurisdiction over court cases involving children

3946: 3814: 3795: 3600: 3588: 3576: 3570: 3537: 3154: 3141: 2570:

How a white evangelical family could dismantle adoption protections for Native children

2170: 2153: 1370: 1362: 1152: 1071: 378: 359: 306: 146: 2867:"In Arizona, Small Tribe Watches Warily as Supreme Court takes up Native adoption law" 2243: 1342: 853: 287: 4371: 4180: 4098: 3956: 3790: 3515: 3427: 3299: 3083: 3062: 3007: 2945: 2081: 2046: 1826: 1805: 1781: 1374: 1122:, and it is a more efficient use of the Court's time to hear them at the same time. 1119: 4333: 4053: 3183: 2167: 2107: 2038: 2029:

Cross, T.L (2014). "Child welfare in Indian country: A story of painful removals".

1539:

Suzette Brewer, "War of Words: ICWA Faces Multiple Assaults From Adoption Industry"

1354: 1277: 3882:

United States Congressional Joint Special Committee on Conditions of Indian Tribes

3171: 1901: 1764: 1716: 1568: 1329: 1301: 1297: 355: 351: 4308: 4063: 3802: 3531: 3451: 3355: 3323: 3192: 2957: 2093: 2058: 2015: 1545: 1223: 1067: 2483:"Indian Affairs, Adoption, and Race: The Baby Veronica Case Comes to Washington" 2460:"What the Court's 'Baby Veronica' Ruling Means for Fathers and Native Americans" 2421: 4349: 4293: 3900: 3859: 3636: 3307: 1215: 1157: 818: 490: 465: 199: 2532:

Trusting the Tribe: Understanding the Tensions of the Indian Child Welfare Act

2042: 1116:

Deb Haaland, Secretary of the Interior, et al. v. Chad Everet Brackeen, et al.

876:

as an implicit rejection of the exception. Other sources have noted that the

4405: 4303: 4298: 4130: 3864: 3849: 3467: 2632:(Feb. 28, 2022, 2:02 p.m.) (last accessed Mar. 20, 2022) (hereinafter Mabie, 2556:

NYT spotlights white Fort Worth couple's fight to adopt Native American child

1084: 395: 1668:"Native adoptions can give priority to tribal families, Supreme Court rules" 1653:"The Feds Are Helping Tribes in a Fight for Sovereignty and Native Children" 4338: 3892: 3678: 2110: 2085: 2050: 1582:"Federal court in Texas declares Indian Child Welfare Act unconstitutional" 1141: 1003: 486: 478: 363: 252: 207: 3050:

American Indian Constitutional Reform and the Rebuilding of Native Nations

996:

The US Supreme Court issued a decision pertaining to the ICWA in the case

377:

exclusive jurisdiction over children who reside on, or are domiciled on a

4381: 4048: 3927: 3780: 1586: 370:

children from their families in custody, foster care and adoption cases.

2936:

Fort, Kathryn (2023). "The Road to Brackeen: Defending ICWA 2013–2023".

2418:

Hearing, H.R. 1082/S. 569, to amend the Indian Child Welfare Act of 1978

1366: 1285: 113: 3854: 1110: 1089: 403: 2352:, 1997 Tenn. App. LEXIS 818 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1997). 1093:

opinion that summarized the primary opinions of Judge Dennis or Judge

791:

The child's cultural connections with the tribe or its reservation; or

4323: 4246: 4043: 3606: 3594: 3178: 3077: 3029: 3001: 1358: 1054: 964: 914: 906: 525:

ordered that O'Connor's judgment be stayed, holding that it violated

1011:

which had ruled that the father should be given custody under ICWA.

3923: 3231: 3125: 3038: 2893:"US supreme court upholds protections for Native American children" 1007: 960: 910: 902: 764:

The Indian child is over the age of 12 and objects to the transfer,

587: 529:. On August 9, 2019, the court ruled that the law does not violate 2106:

Guidelines for State Courts; Indian Child Custody Proceedings, 44

3555:

List of United States Supreme Court cases involving Indian tribes

1144:

wrote "The Road to Brackeen: Defending ICWA 2013-2023 in 2015."

1079: 1058: 898: 894: 537:. The ICWA remained in effect. In 2022 the case was heard by the 534: 482: 44: 1980:, 2008 Neb. App. LEXIS 240 (Neb. App. 2008). 541:, who upheld the constitutionality of the law in June 2023 (see 1873:

In the Interest of C.H. et al., 510 N.W.2d 119, 123 (S.D. 1993)

1062: 398:

proceedings that involve Native children, by allocating tribes

1162:

American children, and issues for potential adoptive parents.

455:

Various other groups have also had stakes in these decisions.

3043:(Second ed.). Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska Press. 2542:

Custody Fight Pits Texas Couple Against a Law Favoring Tribes

1776:

Jones, Billy Joe; Tilden, Mark; Gaines-Stoner, Kelly (2008).

1050: 2282:, 571 So.2d 1187 (Ala. Civ. App. 1990). 1944:

A Practical Guide to the Indian Child Welfare Act, p. 56-63

1924:

A Practical Guide to the Indian Child Welfare Act, p. 46-49

1429:"The Indian Child Welfare Act: The need for a separate law" 3436:

County of Oneida v. Oneida Indian Nation of New York State

3039:

Josephy, Alvin M.; Nagel, Joane; Johnson, Troy R. (1999).

3002:

Goldstein, Joseph; Freud, Anna; Solnit, Albert J. (1979).

1780:(2nd ed.). American Bar Association. pp. 84–88. 1390:"The Brutal Past and Uncertain Future of Native Adoptions" 1002:, on June 25, 2013. In a 5-4 opinion delivered by Justice 533:. On November 7, 2019, the court voted to rehear the case 2338:, 837 S.W.2d 947 (Mo. Ct. App. 1992). 1289: 788:

Whether transfer could affect the placement of the child;

3030:

Jones, B.J.; Tilden, Mark; Gaines-Stoner, Kelly (1995).

2324:, 658 So.2d 331 (La. Ct. App. 1995). 1775: 607:. This Court ruled that the ICWA gives the tribal court 470:

Beyond the Best Interests of the Child (Second Edition),

394:

ICWA gives tribal governments a strong voice concerning

2126:, 2009 Alas. LEXIS 25 (Alas. 2009). 774:

The BIA has also set out factors that state courts may

489:

to sign the bill. It was strongly supported by Senator

3697:

Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act

3661:

Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act

1956:

Jones, The Indian Child Welfare Act Handbook, p.65-67.

1912:

Jones, The Indian Child Welfare Act Handbook, p.88-89.

1182:

Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction And Enforcement Act

988: 951:

In her 1997 testimony before the Joint Hearing of the

3034:(Second ed.). Chicago: American Bar Association. 2842:(Online), Apr. 8, 2021 (last accessed Mar. 13, 2022). 1804:. Native American Rights Fund. 2007. pp. 36–41. 975: 3508:

City of Sherrill v. Oneida Indian Nation of New York

3388:

Oneida Indian Nation of New York v. County of Oneida

3061:. The Hague, The Netherlands: Martinus Nijhoff Pub. 3056: 2832:(last accessed Mar. 13, 2022); Debra Cassens Weiss, 1147: 523:

United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

4344:

Child abductions in the Russian invasion of Ukraine

3709:

Cherokee Nation Truth in Advertising for Native Art

3364:

Federal Power Commission v. Tuscarora Indian Nation

3006:(Second ed.). New York: Simon & Schuster. 2794:, 994 F.3d 249 (5th Cir. 2021) (hereafter cited as 798: 3041:Red Power: the American Indians' Fight for Freedom 2443:A Practical Guide to the Indian Child Welfare Act, 2202:A Practical Guide to the Indian Child Welfare Act, 1990:A Practical Guide to the Indian Child Welfare Act, 1602:"5th Cir. case No. 18-11479 Document: 00514745522" 1269: 921:The Kansas Supreme Court expressly overturned the 4412:United States federal Native American legislation 3106:Blood Struggle: The Rise of Modern Indian Nations 3079:A Practical Guide to the Indian Child Welfare Act 2577:(Feb. 20, 2020, 7:30 A.M) (hereinafter Asgarian, 2296:, 525 N.E.2d 298 (Ind. 1988). 2140:, 657 N.E.2d 935 (Ill. 1995). 1802:A Practical Guide to the Indian Child Welfare Act 1666:Marimow, Ann E.; Barnes, Robert (June 15, 2023). 4403: 3460:Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians v. Holyfield 3186:for parents in abuse and neglect cases from the 2310:, 934 S.W.2d 257 (Ky. 1996). 2233:Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians v. Holyfield 1952: 1950: 1433:General Practice, Solo & Small Firm Division 842:Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians v. Holyfield 601:Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians v. Holyfield 580: 428:House Committee for Interior and Insular Affairs 276:Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians v. Holyfield 4432:United States federal child welfare legislation 3786:Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples 2693:(May 31, 2022, 3:31 P.M) (hereinafter Creamer, 2366:, 204 P.3d 543 (Kan. 2009). 2189:, 643 P.2d 168 (Kan. 1982). 1494: 1492: 1490: 457:The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints 3340:United States v. Santa Fe Pacific Railroad Co. 1852:In re Nikki R. (2003) 106 Cal.App.4th 844, 848 726: 3908: 3217: 2589: 2587: 2563:, June 5, 2019, online (hereinafter Garrett, 2249: 1947: 1906: 1869: 1867: 1769: 1665: 1474: 735: 235:on October 14, 1978 (Passed, in lieu of 3922: 3444:South Carolina v. Catawba Indian Tribe, Inc. 3082:. Boulder, CO: Native American Rights Fund. 2549:, June 5, 2019, at A1 (hereinafter Hoffman, 2180: 2178: 2071: 1739: 1737: 1519: 1487: 2214: 2212: 2210: 2004:Columbia Journal of Law and Social Problems 1977:In re Interest of Bianca H. and Eternity H. 1755: 1753: 1751: 1749: 1707: 1705: 1703: 1701: 1699: 1697: 1426: 803: 696: 346:, enacted November 8, 1978 and codified at 3915: 3901: 3380:McClanahan v. Arizona State Tax Commission 3224: 3210: 3075: 2890: 2584: 2387: 1864: 1334: 1320: 1318: 1316: 1314: 1312: 1310: 636: 614: 598:case dealing with ICWA was the 1989 case 4452:November 1978 events in the United States 4284:Canadian Indian residential school system 3197:National Indian Child Welfare Association 3103: 3057:Lowe, Nigel V.; Douglas, Gillian (1996). 2909: 2864: 2396: 2227: 2225: 2175: 1940: 1938: 1936: 1934: 1932: 1930: 1920: 1918: 1843:In re Robert A., 147 Cal.App.4th 982, 989 1734: 1510: 1465: 1407: 2822:, 994 F.3d at 267-68; Adrianna Shannon, 2510:"Supreme Court denies hearing Lexi case" 2453: 2451: 2207: 2197: 2195: 2100: 1890: 1746: 1694: 1557: 1532: 717: 627: 4265:List of international adoption scandals 3733:Federal recognition of Native Hawaiians 3020: 2686:The fight over American Indian children 2505: 2503: 1794: 1456: 1420: 1307: 758:No tribal court as defined by the ICWA, 464:social workers are conditioned by the " 4447:Civil rights and liberties legislation 4422:Indigenous rights in the United States 4404: 4329:Kidnapping of children by Nazi Germany 3047: 3025:. New York: New York University Press. 3004:Beyond the Best Interests of the Child 2825:Indian Nations Law Update - April 2021 2474: 2436: 2257:The Indian Child Welfare Act Handbook, 2222: 2001: 1983: 1927: 1915: 1527:The Indian Child Welfare Act Handbook, 1482:The Indian Child Welfare Act Handbook, 1447: 1387: 1340: 1187:Association on American Indian Affairs 1033: 1018: 959:, Assistant Secretary of the Interior 503:Association on American Indian Affairs 452:social conditions in Indian country". 4319:Forced adoption in the United Kingdom 3896: 3667:American Indian Religious Freedom Act 3484:Idaho v. Coeur d'Alene Tribe of Idaho 3237:Native Americans in the United States 3205: 2992: 2970: 2865:Brulliard, Karin (November 7, 2022). 2480: 2457: 2448: 2192: 2028: 1579: 1249:The other three cases were styled as 701: 4427:Civil liberties in the United States 3348:Tee-Hit-Ton Indians v. United States 3052:. Austin: University of Texas Press. 2935: 2500: 2411: 2375:81 Fed. Reg. 38801-2 (June 14, 2016) 1861:In re O.K., 106 Cal.App.4th 152, 156 1824: 1818: 555: 4198:Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act 4163:Adoption Information Disclosure Act 4141:History of children in the military 3655:Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act 3316:Seneca Nation of Indians v. Christy 3151:As codified in 25 U.S.C. chapter 21 3138:As codified in 25 U.S.C. chapter 21 1580:Laird, Lorelei (October 10, 2018). 1554:, 8 July 2015; accessed 9 June 2016 1507:81 Fed. Reg. 38780 (June 14, 2016)_ 1417:197 (University of Minnesota Press) 1261: 1222:Tribal Legal Development Clinic at 983: 965:Menominee Indian Tribe of Wisconsin 384: 13: 4365:Historical criticism of orphanages 4256:Controversial violations of rights 3113: 2384:81 Fed. Reg. 38802 (June 14, 2016) 1388:Glaser, Gabrielle (May 16, 2023). 1274:Tooltip Public Law (United States) 1220:San Manuel Band of Mission Indians 1131:Article I of the U.S. Constitution 1047:Supreme Court of the United States 976:Foster care placement and adoption 957:Senate Committee on Indian Affairs 508: 495:Select Committee on Indian Affairs 222:House Interior and Insular Affairs 14: 4463: 4289:Tennessee Children's Home Society 3825:National Indian Gaming Commission 3420:Merrion v. Jicarilla Apache Tribe 3284:New York ex rel. Cutler v. Dibble 3131: 3108:. New York: W.W. Norton & Co. 2995:American Indian Law in a Nutshell 2910:Schonfeld, Zach (June 15, 2023). 2746:77 Wash. & Lee L. Rev. Online 2539:241, 265–66 (2020); Jan Hoffman, 2137:In re Adoption of S.S. & R.S. 1148:Representation in popular culture 245:on October 14, 1978 (Agreed) 229:on November 4, 1977 (Passed) 4442:Foster care in the United States 4270:American Indian boarding schools 4210:Islamic adoptional jurisprudence 3372:Menominee Tribe v. United States 3164:Indian Child Welfare Act of 1978 3048:Lemont, Eric David, ed. (2006). 2891:Pilkington, Ed (June 15, 2023). 2744:, 942 F.3d 287 (2019); Dempsey, 2481:Cohen, Andrew (April 13, 2013). 799:Existing Indian family exception 632:Maintaining tribal relationships 340:Indian Child Welfare Act of 1978 243:Senate agreed to House amendment 27: 22:Indian Child Welfare Act of 1978 4274:American Indian outing programs 4069:Cultural variations in adoption 3579:(1790,1793,1796,1799,1802,1834) 3179:Statute Compilations collection 2964: 2929: 2903: 2884: 2858: 2845: 2813: 2801: 2785: 2772: 2755: 2735: 2722: 2713: 2700: 2677: 2656: 2639: 2600: 2519: 2458:Cohen, Andrew (June 25, 2013). 2420:. U.S. Congress. Archived from 2405: 2378: 2369: 2355: 2341: 2327: 2313: 2299: 2285: 2271: 2262: 2160: 2143: 2129: 2115: 2065: 2022: 1995: 1969: 1959: 1876: 1855: 1846: 1837: 1721: 1685: 1659: 1645: 1628: 1611: 1594: 1573: 1501: 1243: 1229: 1208: 1199: 687: 550: 517:, Federal District Court Judge 4169:Adoption and Safe Families Act 4157:Access to Adoption Records Act 3809:In the Courts of the Conqueror 3412:Santa Clara Pueblo v. Martinez 3193:Child welfare system resources 3104:Wilkinson, Charles F. (2005). 3023:Mixed Race America and the Law 2993:Canby, William C. Jr. (2004). 2971:Karbo, Karen (June 27, 1993). 2938:American University Law Review 2412:Deer, Ada E. (June 18, 1997). 2123:Shageluk IRA Council v. Alaska 1381: 1172:Adoption and Safe Families Act 1140:; Washington Vol. 72, Iss. 5, 1138:American University Law Review 1049:case brought by the states of 709:Adoption and Safe Families Act 577:dependent on several factors. 1: 4059:Political abuse of psychiatry 3691:Native American Languages Act 2997:. Eagan, MN: West Publishing. 2986: 2529:at 2014; Onalee R. Chappeau, 1636:"No. 18-11479 rehear en banc" 942: 748: 623: 605:(490 U.S. 30, 109 S.Ct. 1597) 581:Exclusive tribal jurisdiction 513:In October 2018, in the case 4314:Forced adoption in Australia 4258:in adoption or child custody 4187:Foster Care Independence Act 3830:Native American civil rights 3685:Indian Gaming Regulatory Act 3524:Adoptive Couple v. Baby Girl 3121:Adoptive Couple v. Baby Girl 999:Adoptive Couple v. Baby Girl 990:Adoptive Couple v. Baby Girl 497:, each of which he chaired. 295:Adoptive Couple v. Baby Girl 7: 3845:Recognition of sacred sites 3840:Native American Rights Fund 3745:Federally recognized tribes 3625:Oklahoma Indian Welfare Act 3188:Lakota People's Law Project 3159:US House of Representatives 1267:Indian Child Welfare Act, ( 1165: 837:United States Supreme Court 727:Declination by tribal court 436:Winnebago Tribe of Nebraska 264:United States Supreme Court 62:95th United States Congress 10: 4468: 4356:Jewish orphans controversy 4193:Hague Adoption Convention 3703:Indian Arts and Crafts Act 3260:Cherokee Nation v. Georgia 3021:Johnson, Kevin R. (2003). 2830:105 Nat'l L. Rev. (Online) 2414:"Statement of Ada E. Deer" 1896:Indian Child Welfare Act, 1759:Indian Child Welfare Act, 1711:Indian Child Welfare Act, 1619:"No. 18-11479 three panel" 1563:Indian Child Welfare Act, 1435:. American Bar Association 1347:American Indian Law Review 1324:Indian Child Welfare Act, 1218:), is the director of the 736:Active remediation efforts 466:best interest of the child 413: 389: 4364: 4255: 4237: 4230: 4175:Christian law of adoption 4149: 4079:Genealogical bewilderment 4034:Adoption reunion registry 4011: 3980: 3934: 3758: 3718: 3619:Indian Reorganization Act 3563: 3546:Oklahoma v. Castro-Huerta 3404:United States v. Antelope 3243: 3059:Families Across Frontiers 2393:Johnson, Kevin R., p. 398 2043:10.1377/hlthaff.2014.1158 1341:Graham, Lorie M. (1998). 1214:Lauren van Schilfgaarde ( 953:House Resources Committee 831:Subsequent to the Kansas 644:Secretary of the Interior 360:United States federal law 270: 262: 187: 178: 163: 145: 124: 119: 100: 90: 85: 67: 56: 43: 35: 26: 4279:Indian Placement Program 4242:Adoption in ancient Rome 4215:Putative father registry 4204:Indian Child Welfare Act 3771:Bureau of Indian Affairs 3673:Indian Child Welfare Act 3476:South Dakota v. Bourland 2293:In re Adoption of T.R.M. 1192: 804:History of the exception 697:Transfer to tribal court 485:, who lobbied President 461:Indian Placement Program 421:Bureau of Indian Affairs 3820:Long Walk of the Navajo 3750:State recognized tribes 3649:Indian Civil Rights Act 1743:25 CFR §23.11(a) (2016) 856: (1989) As in the 815:Kiowa Tribe of Oklahoma 637:Notification and rights 615:Concurrent jurisdiction 575:concurrent jurisdiction 214:Committee consideration 164:U.S.C. sections amended 137:43 U.S.C.: Public Lands 4377:Mount Cashel Orphanage 4084:International adoption 4019:Adopted child syndrome 3981:Foster care by country 3835:Native American gaming 3738:Legal status of Hawaii 3613:Indian Citizenship Act 3492:Idaho v. United States 3396:Bryan v. Itasca County 3332:Lone Wolf v. Hitchcock 3292:Standing Bear v. Crook 2719:Fed. R. App. P. 35(a). 1825:Fort, Kathryn (2009). 973: 936: 891: 860:case, both parents in 666: 633: 609:exclusive jurisdiction 571:exclusive jurisdiction 445: 400:exclusive jurisdiction 73:; 45 years ago 3643:Indian Relocation Act 3500:United States v. Lara 3276:Fellows v. Blacksmith 2742:Brackeen v. Bernhardt 2567:); Roxanna Asgarian, 1884:In the Matter of N.B. 1544:June 1, 2016, at the 1498:Wilkinson, p. 258-260 969: 931: 882: 718:Objection to transfer 655: 631: 440: 218:Senate Indian Affairs 71:November 8, 1978 4417:1978 in American law 4387:St. John's Orphanage 4221:Uniform Adoption Act 4136:Sealed birth records 4094:Language of adoption 4089:Interracial adoption 3268:Worcester v. Georgia 3174:) as amended in the 2973:"And Baby Makes Two" 2553:); Arnessa Garrett, 2514:Indian Country Today 1731:864 (December 1993). 1729:CLEARINGHOUSE REVIEW 1551:Indian Country Today 1427:Jones, B.J. (1995). 1177:Uniform Adoption Act 889:of the tribal court. 810:Kansas Supreme Court 743:culturally sensitive 459:(LDS Church) had an 449:culturally competent 366:over the removal of 4039:Adoption tax credit 4029:Adoption home study 4024:Adoption disclosure 3935:Adoption by country 3815:Indian reservations 3776:Cherokee Commission 3252:Johnson v. McIntosh 3076:NARF Staff (2007). 2792:Brackeen v. Haaland 2630:Grand Rapid Tribune 2608:64 St. Louis U.L.J. 2595:64 St. Louis U.L.J. 2561:Dallas Morning News 2537:64 St. Louis U.L.J. 1672:The Washington Post 1042:Haaland v. Brackeen 1035:Haaland v. Brackeen 1020:In re Alexandria P. 835:case, in 1989, the 544:Haaland v. Brackeen 314:Haaland v. Brackeen 255:on November 8, 1978 181:Legislative history 23: 3875:Self-determination 3870:Tribal sovereignty 3796:Eagle-bone whistle 3589:Indian Removal Act 3577:Nonintercourse Act 3571:Blood quantum laws 3538:McGirt v. Oklahoma 3155:United States Code 3142:United States Code 3124:(2013) podcast by 2977:The New York Times 2810:, 994 F.3d at 267. 2763:42 Cardozo L. Rev. 2730:42 Cardozo L. Rev. 2666:at 2015; Hoffman, 2664:42 Cardozo L. Rev. 2649:at 2014; Hoffman, 2647:42 Cardozo L. Rev. 2527:42 Cardozo L. Rev. 2516:, January 13, 2017 2424:on January 3, 2009 1394:The New York Times 1153:Barbara Kingsolver 1072:tribal sovereignty 702:Motion to transfer 634: 527:tribal sovereignty 468:", as outlined by 434:As Louis La Rose ( 406:of the tribe; and 375:tribal governments 210:) on April 1, 1977 132:25 U.S.C.: Indians 21: 4399: 4398: 4395: 4394: 4372:Duplessis Orphans 4181:Dima Yakovlev Law 4099:Same-sex adoption 3890: 3889: 3791:Eagle feather law 3725:State recognition 3516:Cobell v. Salazar 3428:Solem v. Bartlett 3300:Ex parte Crow Dog 3089:978-0-9794099-1-2 3068:978-90-411-0239-3 3013:978-0-02-912200-6 2610:at 266; Hoffman, 2321:Hampton v. J.A.L. 2186:In re Baby Boy L. 2037:(12): 2256–2259. 939:Indian culture." 650:construed." ' ." 556:Minimum standards 515:Brackeen v. Zinke 426:Testimony in the 336: 335: 227:Passed the Senate 194:in the Senate as 103:Statutes at Large 4459: 4334:Tianjin Massacre 4235: 4234: 4054:Child laundering 3917: 3910: 3903: 3894: 3893: 3766:Aboriginal title 3583:Civilization Act 3519:(D.C. Cir. 2009) 3226: 3219: 3212: 3203: 3202: 3109: 3100: 3098: 3096: 3072: 3053: 3044: 3035: 3026: 3017: 2998: 2981: 2980: 2968: 2962: 2961: 2944:(5): 1631–1666. 2933: 2927: 2926: 2924: 2922: 2907: 2901: 2900: 2888: 2882: 2881: 2879: 2877: 2862: 2856: 2849: 2843: 2841: 2831: 2817: 2811: 2805: 2799: 2789: 2783: 2776: 2770: 2765:at 2015; Mabie, 2764: 2759: 2753: 2747: 2739: 2733: 2731: 2726: 2720: 2717: 2711: 2704: 2698: 2692: 2681: 2675: 2665: 2660: 2654: 2648: 2643: 2637: 2631: 2609: 2604: 2598: 2596: 2591: 2582: 2576: 2562: 2548: 2538: 2528: 2523: 2517: 2507: 2498: 2497: 2495: 2493: 2478: 2472: 2471: 2469: 2467: 2455: 2446: 2440: 2434: 2433: 2431: 2429: 2409: 2403: 2400: 2394: 2391: 2385: 2382: 2376: 2373: 2367: 2365: 2359: 2353: 2351: 2345: 2339: 2337: 2335:C.E.H. v. L.M.W. 2331: 2325: 2323: 2317: 2311: 2309: 2303: 2297: 2295: 2289: 2283: 2281: 2275: 2269: 2266: 2260: 2253: 2247: 2229: 2220: 2216: 2205: 2199: 2190: 2188: 2182: 2173: 2164: 2158: 2156: 2147: 2141: 2139: 2133: 2127: 2125: 2119: 2113: 2104: 2098: 2097: 2069: 2063: 2062: 2026: 2020: 2019: 1999: 1993: 1987: 1981: 1979: 1973: 1967: 1963: 1957: 1954: 1945: 1942: 1925: 1922: 1913: 1910: 1904: 1894: 1888: 1886: 1880: 1874: 1871: 1862: 1859: 1853: 1850: 1844: 1841: 1835: 1834: 1822: 1816: 1815: 1798: 1792: 1791: 1773: 1767: 1757: 1744: 1741: 1732: 1725: 1719: 1709: 1692: 1689: 1683: 1682: 1680: 1678: 1663: 1657: 1656: 1649: 1643: 1642: 1640: 1632: 1626: 1625: 1623: 1615: 1609: 1608: 1606: 1598: 1592: 1591: 1577: 1571: 1561: 1555: 1536: 1530: 1523: 1517: 1516:Goldstein, p. 53 1514: 1508: 1505: 1499: 1496: 1485: 1478: 1472: 1469: 1463: 1460: 1454: 1451: 1445: 1444: 1442: 1440: 1424: 1418: 1411: 1405: 1404: 1402: 1400: 1385: 1379: 1378: 1359:10.2307/20068871 1338: 1332: 1322: 1305: 1291: 1290:November 8, 1978 1275: 1271: 1265: 1254: 1247: 1241: 1233: 1227: 1212: 1206: 1203: 984:Legal Challenges 819:reversible error 664: 531:equal protection 385:Overview of ICWA 239:) with amendment 233:Passed the House 183: 149:sections created 104: 81: 79: 74: 49: 31: 24: 20: 4467: 4466: 4462: 4461: 4460: 4458: 4457: 4456: 4402: 4401: 4400: 4391: 4360: 4309:Michael A. Hess 4257: 4251: 4226: 4145: 4064:Closed adoption 4007: 3976: 3930: 3921: 3891: 3886: 3803:Hunting license 3754: 3723: 3714: 3631:Nationality Act 3559: 3532:Sharp v. Murphy 3452:Hodel v. Irving 3356:Williams v. Lee 3324:Talton v. Mayes 3239: 3230: 3134: 3116: 3114:Further reading 3094: 3092: 3090: 3069: 3014: 2989: 2984: 2969: 2965: 2934: 2930: 2920: 2918: 2908: 2904: 2889: 2885: 2875: 2873: 2871:Washington Post 2863: 2859: 2850: 2846: 2839: 2829: 2818: 2814: 2806: 2802: 2790: 2786: 2777: 2773: 2762: 2760: 2756: 2748:at 414; Lynch, 2745: 2740: 2736: 2729: 2727: 2723: 2718: 2714: 2705: 2701: 2690: 2682: 2678: 2663: 2661: 2657: 2646: 2644: 2640: 2629: 2607: 2605: 2601: 2594: 2592: 2585: 2574: 2560: 2546: 2536: 2526: 2524: 2520: 2508: 2501: 2491: 2489: 2479: 2475: 2465: 2463: 2456: 2449: 2441: 2437: 2427: 2425: 2410: 2406: 2401: 2397: 2392: 2388: 2383: 2379: 2374: 2370: 2361: 2360: 2356: 2347: 2346: 2342: 2333: 2332: 2328: 2319: 2318: 2314: 2305: 2304: 2300: 2291: 2290: 2286: 2277: 2276: 2272: 2267: 2263: 2254: 2250: 2230: 2223: 2217: 2208: 2200: 2193: 2184: 2183: 2176: 2165: 2161: 2149: 2148: 2144: 2135: 2134: 2130: 2121: 2120: 2116: 2105: 2101: 2070: 2066: 2027: 2023: 2000: 1996: 1988: 1984: 1975: 1974: 1970: 1964: 1960: 1955: 1948: 1943: 1928: 1923: 1916: 1911: 1907: 1895: 1891: 1882: 1881: 1877: 1872: 1865: 1860: 1856: 1851: 1847: 1842: 1838: 1823: 1819: 1812: 1800: 1799: 1795: 1788: 1774: 1770: 1758: 1747: 1742: 1735: 1726: 1722: 1710: 1695: 1690: 1686: 1676: 1674: 1664: 1660: 1651: 1650: 1646: 1638: 1634: 1633: 1629: 1621: 1617: 1616: 1612: 1604: 1600: 1599: 1595: 1578: 1574: 1562: 1558: 1546:Wayback Machine 1537: 1533: 1524: 1520: 1515: 1511: 1506: 1502: 1497: 1488: 1479: 1475: 1471:Josephy, p. 124 1470: 1466: 1461: 1457: 1452: 1448: 1438: 1436: 1425: 1421: 1412: 1408: 1398: 1396: 1386: 1382: 1339: 1335: 1323: 1308: 1273: 1266: 1262: 1258: 1257: 1248: 1244: 1234: 1230: 1224:UCLA Law School 1213: 1209: 1204: 1200: 1195: 1168: 1155:'s 1993 novel 1150: 1038: 1023: 994: 986: 978: 945: 806: 801: 751: 738: 729: 720: 704: 699: 690: 665: 662: 639: 626: 617: 583: 558: 553: 511: 509:Legal challenge 416: 392: 387: 368:American Indian 332: 258: 249:Signed into law 237:H.R. 12533 179: 141: 102: 77: 75: 72: 57:Enacted by 47: 17: 12: 11: 5: 4465: 4455: 4454: 4449: 4444: 4439: 4434: 4429: 4424: 4419: 4414: 4397: 4396: 4393: 4392: 4390: 4389: 4384: 4379: 4374: 4368: 4366: 4362: 4361: 4359: 4358: 4353: 4350:Postremo mense 4346: 4341: 4336: 4331: 4326: 4321: 4316: 4311: 4306: 4301: 4296: 4294:Baby Scoop Era 4291: 4286: 4281: 4276: 4267: 4261: 4259: 4253: 4252: 4250: 4249: 4244: 4238: 4232: 4228: 4227: 4225: 4224: 4218: 4212: 4207: 4201: 4195: 4190: 4184: 4178: 4172: 4166: 4160: 4153: 4151: 4147: 4146: 4144: 4143: 4138: 4133: 4128: 4127: 4126: 4121: 4119:United Kingdom 4116: 4111: 4106: 4096: 4091: 4086: 4081: 4076: 4071: 4066: 4061: 4056: 4051: 4046: 4041: 4036: 4031: 4026: 4021: 4015: 4013: 4009: 4008: 4006: 4005: 4000: 3998:United Kingdom 3995: 3990: 3984: 3982: 3978: 3977: 3975: 3974: 3969: 3964: 3959: 3954: 3949: 3944: 3938: 3936: 3932: 3931: 3920: 3919: 3912: 3905: 3897: 3888: 3887: 3885: 3884: 3879: 3878: 3877: 3867: 3862: 3860:Trail of Tears 3857: 3852: 3847: 3842: 3837: 3832: 3827: 3822: 3817: 3812: 3805: 3800: 3799: 3798: 3788: 3783: 3778: 3773: 3768: 3762: 3760: 3756: 3755: 3753: 3752: 3747: 3742: 3741: 3740: 3729: 3727: 3716: 3715: 3713: 3712: 3706: 3700: 3694: 3688: 3682: 3676: 3670: 3664: 3658: 3652: 3646: 3640: 3637:Public Law 280 3634: 3628: 3622: 3616: 3610: 3604: 3598: 3592: 3586: 3580: 3574: 3573:(1705 onwards) 3567: 3565: 3561: 3560: 3558: 3557: 3551: 3550: 3542: 3528: 3520: 3512: 3504: 3496: 3488: 3480: 3472: 3464: 3456: 3448: 3440: 3432: 3424: 3416: 3408: 3400: 3392: 3384: 3376: 3368: 3360: 3352: 3344: 3336: 3328: 3320: 3312: 3308:Elk v. Wilkins 3304: 3296: 3295:(D. Neb. 1879) 3288: 3280: 3272: 3264: 3256: 3247: 3245: 3241: 3240: 3229: 3228: 3221: 3214: 3206: 3200: 3199: 3190: 3184:ICWA Guidebook 3181: 3161: 3148: 3133: 3132:External links 3130: 3129: 3128: 3115: 3112: 3111: 3110: 3101: 3088: 3073: 3067: 3054: 3045: 3036: 3027: 3018: 3012: 2999: 2988: 2985: 2983: 2982: 2963: 2928: 2902: 2883: 2857: 2844: 2812: 2800: 2784: 2771: 2754: 2734: 2721: 2712: 2699: 2683:Ella Creamer, 2676: 2655: 2638: 2622:; Nora Mabie, 2599: 2583: 2518: 2499: 2473: 2462:. The Atlantic 2447: 2435: 2404: 2402:Lemont, p. 125 2395: 2386: 2377: 2368: 2354: 2340: 2326: 2312: 2298: 2284: 2279:S.A. v. E.J.P. 2270: 2261: 2248: 2221: 2206: 2191: 2174: 2159: 2142: 2128: 2114: 2099: 2064: 2031:Health Affairs 2021: 2010:(4): 501–549. 1994: 1982: 1968: 1958: 1946: 1926: 1914: 1905: 1898:25 U.S.C. 1889: 1875: 1863: 1854: 1845: 1836: 1817: 1810: 1793: 1786: 1768: 1761:25 U.S.C. 1745: 1733: 1720: 1713:25 U.S.C. 1693: 1684: 1658: 1644: 1627: 1610: 1593: 1572: 1565:25 U.S.C. 1556: 1531: 1518: 1509: 1500: 1486: 1473: 1464: 1455: 1446: 1419: 1406: 1380: 1333: 1326:25 U.S.C. 1306: 1294:25 U.S.C. 1259: 1256: 1255: 1242: 1228: 1216:Cochiti Pueblo 1207: 1197: 1196: 1194: 1191: 1190: 1189: 1184: 1179: 1174: 1167: 1164: 1158:Pigs in Heaven 1149: 1146: 1108:for a writ of 1100:Following the 1037: 1032: 1022: 1017: 993: 987: 985: 982: 977: 974: 944: 941: 884:Surprisingly, 805: 802: 800: 797: 796: 795: 792: 789: 786: 783: 772: 771: 768: 765: 762: 759: 750: 747: 737: 734: 728: 725: 719: 716: 703: 700: 698: 695: 689: 686: 660: 638: 635: 625: 622: 616: 613: 582: 579: 557: 554: 552: 549: 510: 507: 491:James Abourezk 415: 412: 391: 388: 386: 383: 348:25 U.S.C. 334: 333: 331: 330: 329:___ (2023) 310: 291: 271: 268: 267: 260: 259: 257: 256: 246: 240: 230: 224: 211: 200:James Abourezk 188: 185: 184: 176: 175: 165: 161: 160: 159:§ 1901 et seq. 150: 143: 142: 140: 139: 134: 128: 126: 125:Titles amended 122: 121: 117: 116: 106: 98: 97: 92: 88: 87: 83: 82: 69: 65: 64: 58: 54: 53: 50: 41: 40: 37: 33: 32: 15: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 4464: 4453: 4450: 4448: 4445: 4443: 4440: 4438: 4437:Child custody 4435: 4433: 4430: 4428: 4425: 4423: 4420: 4418: 4415: 4413: 4410: 4409: 4407: 4388: 4385: 4383: 4380: 4378: 4375: 4373: 4370: 4369: 4367: 4363: 4357: 4354: 4352: 4351: 4347: 4345: 4342: 4340: 4337: 4335: 4332: 4330: 4327: 4325: 4322: 4320: 4317: 4315: 4312: 4310: 4307: 4305: 4304:Home Children 4302: 4300: 4299:Sixties Scoop 4297: 4295: 4292: 4290: 4287: 4285: 4282: 4280: 4277: 4275: 4271: 4268: 4266: 4263: 4262: 4260: 4254: 4248: 4245: 4243: 4240: 4239: 4236: 4233: 4229: 4222: 4219: 4216: 4213: 4211: 4208: 4205: 4202: 4199: 4196: 4194: 4191: 4188: 4185: 4182: 4179: 4176: 4173: 4170: 4167: 4164: 4161: 4158: 4155: 4154: 4152: 4148: 4142: 4139: 4137: 4134: 4132: 4131:Open adoption 4129: 4125: 4124:United States 4122: 4120: 4117: 4115: 4112: 4110: 4107: 4105: 4102: 4101: 4100: 4097: 4095: 4092: 4090: 4087: 4085: 4082: 4080: 4077: 4075: 4072: 4070: 4067: 4065: 4062: 4060: 4057: 4055: 4052: 4050: 4047: 4045: 4042: 4040: 4037: 4035: 4032: 4030: 4027: 4025: 4022: 4020: 4017: 4016: 4014: 4010: 4004: 4003:United States 4001: 3999: 3996: 3994: 3991: 3989: 3986: 3985: 3983: 3979: 3973: 3970: 3968: 3967:United States 3965: 3963: 3960: 3958: 3955: 3953: 3950: 3948: 3945: 3943: 3940: 3939: 3937: 3933: 3929: 3925: 3918: 3913: 3911: 3906: 3904: 3899: 3898: 3895: 3883: 3880: 3876: 3873: 3872: 3871: 3868: 3866: 3865:Treaty rights 3863: 3861: 3858: 3856: 3853: 3851: 3850:Seminole Wars 3848: 3846: 3843: 3841: 3838: 3836: 3833: 3831: 3828: 3826: 3823: 3821: 3818: 3816: 3813: 3811: 3810: 3806: 3804: 3801: 3797: 3794: 3793: 3792: 3789: 3787: 3784: 3782: 3779: 3777: 3774: 3772: 3769: 3767: 3764: 3763: 3761: 3757: 3751: 3748: 3746: 3743: 3739: 3736: 3735: 3734: 3731: 3730: 3728: 3726: 3721: 3717: 3710: 3707: 3704: 3701: 3698: 3695: 3692: 3689: 3686: 3683: 3680: 3677: 3674: 3671: 3668: 3665: 3662: 3659: 3656: 3653: 3650: 3647: 3644: 3641: 3638: 3635: 3632: 3629: 3626: 3623: 3620: 3617: 3614: 3611: 3608: 3605: 3602: 3599: 3596: 3593: 3590: 3587: 3584: 3581: 3578: 3575: 3572: 3569: 3568: 3566: 3562: 3556: 3553: 3552: 3548: 3547: 3543: 3540: 3539: 3534: 3533: 3529: 3526: 3525: 3521: 3518: 3517: 3513: 3510: 3509: 3505: 3502: 3501: 3497: 3494: 3493: 3489: 3486: 3485: 3481: 3478: 3477: 3473: 3470: 3469: 3468:Duro v. Reina 3465: 3462: 3461: 3457: 3454: 3453: 3449: 3446: 3445: 3441: 3438: 3437: 3433: 3430: 3429: 3425: 3422: 3421: 3417: 3414: 3413: 3409: 3406: 3405: 3401: 3398: 3397: 3393: 3390: 3389: 3385: 3382: 3381: 3377: 3374: 3373: 3369: 3366: 3365: 3361: 3358: 3357: 3353: 3350: 3349: 3345: 3342: 3341: 3337: 3334: 3333: 3329: 3326: 3325: 3321: 3318: 3317: 3313: 3310: 3309: 3305: 3302: 3301: 3297: 3294: 3293: 3289: 3286: 3285: 3281: 3278: 3277: 3273: 3270: 3269: 3265: 3262: 3261: 3257: 3254: 3253: 3249: 3248: 3246: 3242: 3238: 3234: 3227: 3222: 3220: 3215: 3213: 3208: 3207: 3204: 3198: 3194: 3191: 3189: 3185: 3182: 3180: 3177: 3173: 3169: 3165: 3162: 3160: 3156: 3152: 3149: 3147: 3143: 3139: 3136: 3135: 3127: 3123: 3122: 3118: 3117: 3107: 3102: 3091: 3085: 3081: 3080: 3074: 3070: 3064: 3060: 3055: 3051: 3046: 3042: 3037: 3033: 3028: 3024: 3019: 3015: 3009: 3005: 3000: 2996: 2991: 2990: 2978: 2974: 2967: 2959: 2955: 2951: 2947: 2943: 2939: 2932: 2917: 2913: 2906: 2898: 2894: 2887: 2872: 2868: 2861: 2854: 2853:Supreme Court 2848: 2837: 2836: 2827: 2826: 2821: 2816: 2809: 2804: 2797: 2793: 2788: 2781: 2775: 2768: 2767:Supreme Court 2758: 2751: 2743: 2738: 2725: 2716: 2709: 2703: 2696: 2688: 2687: 2680: 2673: 2669: 2668:Custody Fight 2659: 2652: 2651:Custody Fight 2642: 2635: 2634:Supreme Court 2627: 2626: 2621: 2617: 2613: 2612:Custody Fight 2603: 2590: 2588: 2580: 2572: 2571: 2566: 2558: 2557: 2552: 2551:Custody Fight 2544: 2543: 2534: 2533: 2522: 2515: 2511: 2506: 2504: 2492:September 25, 2488: 2484: 2477: 2461: 2454: 2452: 2444: 2439: 2423: 2419: 2415: 2408: 2399: 2390: 2381: 2372: 2364: 2358: 2350: 2344: 2336: 2330: 2322: 2316: 2308: 2307:Rye v. Weasel 2302: 2294: 2288: 2280: 2274: 2265: 2258: 2252: 2245: 2242: 2238: 2235: 2234: 2228: 2226: 2215: 2213: 2211: 2203: 2198: 2196: 2187: 2181: 2179: 2172: 2169: 2163: 2155: 2152: 2146: 2138: 2132: 2124: 2118: 2112: 2109: 2103: 2095: 2091: 2087: 2083: 2080:(3): 89–112. 2079: 2075: 2074:Child Welfare 2068: 2060: 2056: 2052: 2048: 2044: 2040: 2036: 2032: 2025: 2017: 2013: 2009: 2005: 1998: 1991: 1986: 1978: 1972: 1962: 1953: 1951: 1941: 1939: 1937: 1935: 1933: 1931: 1921: 1919: 1909: 1903: 1899: 1893: 1885: 1879: 1870: 1868: 1858: 1849: 1840: 1832: 1828: 1821: 1813: 1811:9780979409912 1807: 1803: 1797: 1789: 1787:9781590318584 1783: 1779: 1772: 1766: 1762: 1756: 1754: 1752: 1750: 1740: 1738: 1730: 1724: 1718: 1714: 1708: 1706: 1704: 1702: 1700: 1698: 1691:Canby, p. 196 1688: 1673: 1669: 1662: 1654: 1648: 1637: 1631: 1620: 1614: 1603: 1597: 1589: 1588: 1583: 1576: 1570: 1566: 1560: 1553: 1552: 1547: 1543: 1540: 1535: 1528: 1522: 1513: 1504: 1495: 1493: 1491: 1483: 1477: 1468: 1459: 1450: 1434: 1430: 1423: 1416: 1410: 1395: 1391: 1384: 1376: 1372: 1368: 1364: 1360: 1356: 1352: 1348: 1344: 1337: 1331: 1327: 1321: 1319: 1317: 1315: 1313: 1311: 1303: 1299: 1295: 1287: 1283: 1279: 1272: 1264: 1260: 1253: 1246: 1239: 1232: 1225: 1221: 1217: 1211: 1202: 1198: 1188: 1185: 1183: 1180: 1178: 1175: 1173: 1170: 1169: 1163: 1160: 1159: 1154: 1145: 1143: 1139: 1134: 1132: 1126: 1123: 1121: 1117: 1113: 1112: 1107: 1106:Supreme Court 1103: 1098: 1096: 1092: 1091: 1086: 1085:amicus briefs 1082: 1081: 1075: 1073: 1069: 1064: 1060: 1056: 1052: 1048: 1044: 1043: 1036: 1031: 1027: 1021: 1016: 1012: 1009: 1005: 1001: 1000: 991: 981: 972: 968: 966: 962: 958: 954: 949: 940: 935: 930: 928: 924: 919: 916: 912: 908: 904: 900: 896: 890: 887: 881: 879: 875: 870: 868: 863: 859: 855: 852: 848: 845: 843: 838: 834: 829: 827: 822: 820: 816: 811: 808:In 1982, the 793: 790: 787: 784: 781: 780: 779: 777: 769: 766: 763: 760: 757: 756: 755: 746: 744: 733: 724: 715: 712: 710: 694: 685: 681: 678: 674: 670: 659: 654: 651: 647: 645: 630: 621: 612: 610: 606: 603: 602: 597: 596:Supreme Court 592: 589: 578: 576: 572: 566: 562: 548: 546: 545: 540: 539:Supreme Court 536: 532: 528: 524: 520: 519:Reed O'Connor 516: 506: 504: 498: 496: 492: 488: 484: 480: 474: 471: 467: 462: 458: 453: 450: 444: 439: 438:) testified: 437: 432: 429: 424: 422: 411: 409: 405: 401: 397: 396:child custody 382: 380: 376: 371: 369: 365: 362:that governs 361: 357: 353: 349: 345: 341: 328: 324: 320: 316: 315: 311: 308: 305: 301: 297: 296: 292: 289: 286: 282: 278: 277: 273: 272: 269: 265: 261: 254: 251:by President 250: 247: 244: 241: 238: 234: 231: 228: 225: 223: 219: 215: 212: 209: 205: 201: 197: 193: 190: 189: 186: 182: 177: 174:§§ 1602, 1606 173: 169: 166: 162: 158: 154: 151: 148: 144: 138: 135: 133: 130: 129: 127: 123: 118: 115: 111: 107: 105: 99: 96: 93: 89: 84: 70: 66: 63: 59: 55: 51: 46: 42: 38: 34: 30: 25: 19: 4348: 4339:Mortara case 4203: 3807: 3679:Diminishment 3672: 3544: 3536: 3530: 3522: 3514: 3506: 3498: 3490: 3482: 3474: 3466: 3458: 3450: 3442: 3434: 3426: 3418: 3410: 3402: 3394: 3386: 3378: 3370: 3362: 3354: 3346: 3338: 3330: 3322: 3314: 3306: 3298: 3290: 3282: 3274: 3266: 3258: 3250: 3120: 3105: 3093:. Retrieved 3078: 3058: 3049: 3040: 3031: 3022: 3003: 2994: 2976: 2966: 2941: 2937: 2931: 2919:. Retrieved 2915: 2905: 2897:The Guardian 2896: 2886: 2874:. Retrieved 2870: 2860: 2852: 2847: 2833: 2823: 2820:Brackeen III 2819: 2815: 2808:Brackeen III 2807: 2803: 2796:Brackeen III 2795: 2791: 2787: 2779: 2774: 2766: 2757: 2749: 2741: 2737: 2724: 2715: 2707: 2702: 2694: 2684: 2679: 2671: 2670:; Asgarian, 2667: 2658: 2650: 2641: 2633: 2623: 2619: 2618:; Asgarian, 2615: 2611: 2602: 2578: 2568: 2564: 2554: 2550: 2540: 2530: 2521: 2513: 2490:. Retrieved 2487:The Atlantic 2486: 2476: 2464:. Retrieved 2442: 2438: 2426:. Retrieved 2422:the original 2417: 2407: 2398: 2389: 2380: 2371: 2363:In re A.J.S. 2362: 2357: 2349:In re Morgan 2348: 2343: 2334: 2329: 2320: 2315: 2306: 2301: 2292: 2287: 2278: 2273: 2264: 2256: 2251: 2231: 2201: 2185: 2162: 2145: 2136: 2131: 2122: 2117: 2102: 2077: 2073: 2067: 2034: 2030: 2024: 2007: 2003: 1997: 1989: 1985: 1976: 1971: 1961: 1908: 1892: 1883: 1878: 1857: 1848: 1839: 1831:Court Review 1830: 1820: 1801: 1796: 1777: 1771: 1728: 1723: 1687: 1675:. Retrieved 1671: 1661: 1647: 1630: 1613: 1596: 1585: 1575: 1559: 1549: 1534: 1526: 1521: 1512: 1503: 1481: 1476: 1467: 1458: 1453:Lowe, p. 352 1449: 1437:. Retrieved 1432: 1422: 1415:Wicazo Sa R. 1414: 1409: 1397:. Retrieved 1393: 1383: 1350: 1346: 1336: 1298:§§ 1901 1263: 1250: 1245: 1237: 1231: 1210: 1201: 1156: 1151: 1142:Kathryn Fort 1135: 1127: 1124: 1115: 1109: 1101: 1099: 1088: 1078: 1076: 1040: 1039: 1034: 1028: 1024: 1019: 1013: 1004:Samuel Alito 997: 995: 989: 979: 970: 950: 946: 937: 932: 927:In re A.J.S. 926: 925:decision in 922: 920: 893:As of 2010, 892: 885: 883: 877: 873: 871: 866: 861: 857: 840: 832: 830: 825: 823: 807: 775: 773: 752: 739: 730: 721: 713: 705: 691: 688:Intervention 682: 679: 675: 671: 667: 656: 652: 648: 640: 618: 599: 593: 584: 567: 563: 559: 551:Jurisdiction 542: 514: 512: 499: 487:Jimmy Carter 479:Morris Udall 475: 469: 454: 446: 441: 433: 425: 417: 393: 372: 364:jurisdiction 352:§§ 1901 343: 339: 337: 312: 293: 274: 253:Jimmy Carter 248: 242: 232: 226: 213: 196:S. 1214 191: 120:Codification 48:(colloquial) 18: 4382:Mary Norris 4049:Child abuse 3972:South Korea 3962:Philippines 3928:foster care 3781:Dawes Rolls 3564:Legislation 2876:November 7, 2672:Protections 2620:Protections 2614:; Garrett, 2579:Protections 2246: (1989) 2151:25 CFR 1902:§ 1916 1765:§ 1912 1717:§ 1903 1587:ABA Journal 1569:§ 1902 1353:(1): 1–54. 1330:§ 1911 1095:Kyle Duncan 929:, stating: 867:Baby Boy L. 858:Baby Boy L. 833:Baby Boy L. 826:Baby Boy L. 379:reservation 309: (2013) 290: (1989) 4406:Categories 4074:Disruption 3855:Survivance 3601:Curtis Act 2987:References 2958:2851297072 2616:Spotlights 2606:Chappeau, 2593:Chappeau, 2565:Spotlights 2547:N.Y. Times 2094:1509394991 2059:1635437017 2016:1812610354 1288:, enacted 1280:, 92 1111:certiorari 1090:per curiam 1074:advocate. 967:) stated: 943:Criticisms 749:Good cause 624:Procedures 594:The first 408:concurrent 192:Introduced 91:Public law 78:1978-11-08 36:Long title 4324:Devshirme 4247:Fosterage 4165:(Ontario) 4159:(Ontario) 4104:Australia 4044:Aging out 3988:Australia 3952:Guatemala 3942:Australia 3607:Burke Act 3595:Dawes Act 3195:from the 3157:from the 3144:from the 3095:April 14, 2706:Creamer, 2466:August 5, 2445:pp. 86-89 1992:pp. 67-72 1966:Michigan) 1439:April 13, 1375:155133545 1120:appellant 1055:Louisiana 915:Tennessee 907:Louisiana 886:Holyfield 878:Holyfield 874:Holyfield 862:Holyfield 373:It gives 168:43 U.S.C. 153:25 U.S.C. 86:Citations 68:Effective 4183:(Russia) 3924:Adoption 3244:Case law 3126:Radiolab 2954:ProQuest 2921:June 15, 2916:The Hill 2780:Brackeen 2750:Brackeen 2732:at 2015. 2691:Politico 2428:April 4, 2090:ProQuest 2086:23444791 2055:ProQuest 2051:25489044 2012:ProQuest 1677:June 17, 1542:Archived 1484:p.12-13. 1367:20068871 1240:hearing. 1166:See also 1068:Cherokee 1008:Cherokee 961:Ada Deer 955:and the 911:Missouri 903:Kentucky 661:— 588:Oklahoma 108:92 45:Acronyms 4231:History 4200:(India) 4177:(India) 3759:Related 3720:Federal 3172:details 3153:of the 3140:of the 2950:4505642 2851:Mabie, 2778:Lynch, 2597:at 266. 2255:Jones, 2204:pp. 1-6 1525:Jones, 1480:Jones, 1399:May 17, 1270:Pub. L. 1238:en banc 1136:In the 1102:en banc 1080:en banc 1059:Indiana 923:Baby L. 899:Indiana 895:Alabama 535:en banc 483:Arizona 414:History 390:General 358:) is a 76: ( 4114:Europe 4109:Brazil 4012:Issues 3993:Canada 3947:France 3711:(2008) 3705:(1990) 3699:(1990) 3693:(1990) 3687:(1988) 3681:(1984) 3675:(1978) 3669:(1978) 3663:(1975) 3657:(1971) 3651:(1968) 3645:(1956) 3639:(1953) 3633:(1940) 3627:(1936) 3621:(1934) 3615:(1924) 3609:(1906) 3603:(1898) 3597:(1887) 3591:(1830) 3585:(1819) 3549:(2022) 3541:(2020) 3527:(2013) 3511:(2005) 3503:(2004) 3495:(2001) 3487:(1997) 3479:(1993) 3471:(1990) 3463:(1989) 3455:(1987) 3447:(1986) 3439:(1985) 3431:(1984) 3423:(1982) 3415:(1978) 3407:(1977) 3399:(1976) 3391:(1974) 3383:(1973) 3375:(1968) 3367:(1960) 3359:(1959) 3351:(1955) 3343:(1941) 3335:(1903) 3327:(1896) 3319:(1896) 3311:(1884) 3303:(1883) 3287:(1858) 3279:(1857) 3271:(1832) 3263:(1831) 3255:(1823) 3233:Rights 3086: 3065: 3010: 2956: 2948: 2840:ABA J. 2761:Shaw, 2728:Shaw, 2662:Shaw, 2645:Shaw, 2525:Shaw, 2154:23.118 2092: 2084: 2057: 2049: 2014: 1900: 1808: 1784: 1763: 1715: 1567: 1529:p.3-7. 1373: 1365: 1328: 1296: 1284: 1278:95–608 1276: 1063:Navajo 1057:, and 1045:was a 992:(2013) 913:, and 839:heard 350: 321:, 319:21-376 317:, No. 172:ch. 33 157:ch. 21 147:U.S.C. 112: 95:95-608 3957:Italy 2708:Fight 2695:Fight 2239: 2171:38802 2111:67584 1639:(PDF) 1622:(PDF) 1605:(PDF) 1371:S2CID 1363:JSTOR 1282:Stat. 1193:Notes 1051:Texas 849: 325: 302: 283: 266:cases 170: 155: 110:Stat. 4223:(US) 4217:(US) 4206:(US) 4189:(US) 4171:(US) 4150:Laws 3926:and 3097:2010 3084:ISBN 3063:ISBN 3008:ISBN 2946:SSRN 2923:2023 2878:2022 2494:2019 2468:2014 2430:2010 2259:p.30 2241:U.S. 2219:Law) 2082:PMID 2047:PMID 1806:ISBN 1782:ISBN 1679:2023 1441:2010 1401:2023 1302:1963 1286:3069 851:U.S. 404:ward 356:1963 344:ICWA 338:The 327:U.S. 304:U.S. 285:U.S. 114:3069 60:the 52:ICWA 3722:and 3535:and 3235:of 3176:GPO 3168:PDF 3146:LII 2575:Vox 2237:490 2166:81 2039:doi 1355:doi 1252:al. 847:490 776:not 573:or 547:). 481:of 323:599 307:637 300:570 281:490 216:by 198:by 4408:: 2975:. 2952:. 2942:72 2940:. 2914:. 2895:. 2869:. 2838:, 2828:, 2798:). 2697:). 2689:, 2636:). 2628:, 2586:^ 2581:). 2573:, 2559:, 2545:, 2535:, 2512:, 2502:^ 2485:. 2450:^ 2416:. 2244:30 2224:^ 2209:^ 2194:^ 2177:^ 2168:FR 2108:FR 2088:. 2078:91 2076:. 2053:. 2045:. 2035:33 2033:. 2008:49 2006:. 1949:^ 1929:^ 1917:^ 1866:^ 1829:. 1748:^ 1736:^ 1696:^ 1670:. 1584:. 1548:, 1489:^ 1431:. 1392:. 1369:. 1361:. 1351:23 1349:. 1345:. 1309:^ 1292:, 1053:, 909:, 905:, 901:, 897:, 854:30 298:, 288:30 279:, 220:, 208:SD 4272:/ 3916:e 3909:t 3902:v 3225:e 3218:t 3211:v 3170:/ 3166:( 3099:. 3071:. 3016:. 2979:. 2960:. 2925:. 2899:. 2880:. 2855:. 2782:. 2769:. 2752:. 2710:. 2674:. 2653:. 2496:. 2470:. 2432:. 2157:. 2096:. 2061:. 2041:: 2018:. 1833:. 1814:. 1790:. 1681:. 1655:. 1641:. 1624:. 1607:. 1590:. 1443:. 1403:. 1377:. 1357:: 1304:) 1300:– 1226:. 963:( 844:. 354:– 342:( 206:- 204:D 202:( 80:)

Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.

Knowledge

Indian Child Welfare Act

Index