Dependency Law Finder

Florida's dependency statutes, court rules and DCF operating procedures, with the appellate opinions that apply them

data.robertlathamesq.org · All tools

Before you use this site

This site aggregates legal authorities from a variety of public sources. It is AI and human reviewed. Text processing errors can occur. Always check the information here against the official linked source.

This site is publicly available. Use for general research only. Do not submit confidential or identifiable case information.

I don't agree: show the official sources

Indian tribe jurisdiction over Indian child custody proceedings25 U.S.C. § 1911

Subchapter I · Child Custody Proceedings · Indian Child Welfare Act · United States Code, 2024 edition

6 opinions cite 25 U.S.C. § 1911

  1. Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians v. Holyfield 490 U.S. 30 · US490-30 · U.S. Supreme Court 1989

    Reversed This opinion cites 25 U.S.C. § 1911 4 times, the section generally

    · cited by 1355 in all courts

    Under the Indian Child Welfare Act, twins born off the reservation were domiciled there with their parents, so the tribal court had exclusive jurisdiction and the state adoption decree was reversed.

    …in this case were domiciled on the reservation when adoption proceedings were begun, the Choctaw tribal court possessed exclusive jurisdiction pursuant to 25 U. S. C. § 1911 (a). The Chancery Court of Harrison County was, accordingly, without jurisdiction to enter a decree of adoption; under ICWA § 104, 25 U. S. C. § 1914 , its…

  2. Stillaguamish Tribe of Indians v. D.D. 1D2026-0482 · 1st DCA 2026

    Reversed & remanded This opinion cites 25 U.S.C. § 1911 2 times: (c)

    Order denying the tribe's post-judgment motion to intervene reversed because ICWA lets a tribe intervene at any point before the termination judgment is final.

    …In a state court proceeding for termination of parental rights, the Indian child’s tribe “shall have a right to intervene at any point in the proceeding.” 25 U.S.C. § 1911(c). The statutory right is mandatory and need not be exercised at the outset. See Haaland v. Brackeen, 599 U.S. 255, 267 (2023). As stated by the United States…

  3. Lassiter v. Department of Social Servs. of Durham Cty. 452 U.S. 18 · US452-18 · U.S. Supreme Court 1981

    Affirmed This opinion cites 25 U.S.C. § 1911 2 times, the section generally

    · cited by 3204 in all courts

    Due process does not always require appointed counsel for indigent parents facing termination; decided case by case, and no error here.

    …92 Stat. 3069. Congress there provided for court-appointed counsel to indigent Indian parents facing a termination proceeding. § 102 (b), 92 Stat. 3071 , 25 U. S. C. § 1911 (b) (1976 ed., Supp. III). [6] See, e. g., Levine, Caveat Parens: A Demystification of the Child Protection System, 35 U. Pitt. L. Rev. 1 , 52 (1973);…

  4. Colbert v. United States 785 F.3d 1384 · CA11-14-12007 · 11th Cir. 2015

    This opinion cites 25 U.S.C. § 1911 1 time: (c)(1978)

    · cited by 12 in all courts

    …the right to intervene “[i]n any State court proceeding for the foster care placement of, or termination of parental rights to, an Indian child . . . .” 25 U.S.C. § 1911(c)(1978). 4 Case: 14-12007 Date Filed: 05/07/2015 Page: 5 of 25 “expert on ICWA,” was asked to…

  5. G.L. v. Department of Children & Families 80 So. 3d 1065 · 5D11-1502 · 5th DCA 2012

    Reversed & remanded This opinion cites 25 U.S.C. § 1911 1 time, the section generally

    · cited by 2 in all courts

    Termination reversed because ICWA notice to the tribes was not given after the mother claimed Indian ancestry; the issue can be raised first on appeal.

    …29 (1989). The ICWA applies when the state seeks to place an Indian child 2 in foster care or terminate parental rights. See 25 U.S.C.A. §§ 1911 , 1912. Under those circumstances, whenever the court has reason to know that the child may be an Indian child, DCF, as the party seeking placement or…

  6. W.S. v. Department of Children & Family Services 865 So. 2d 616 · 2D03-2411 · 2nd DCA 2004

    Reversed & remanded This opinion cites 25 U.S.C. § 1911 1 time, the section generally

    Termination reversed because the record did not support abandonment while the mother denied paternity; the court must also ensure ICWA compliance on remand.

    … 819 So.2d 264 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002). W.S. also argues that the trial court has not taken adequate steps to comply with the Indian Child Welfare Act. See 25 U.S.C. § 1911 (2002). The child’s mother has at least some Native American heritage. From our record, we are not certain that the trial court has fully complied with the…

0 admin code rules cite 25 U.S.C. § 1911

DCF's rules in Chapter 65C, Florida Administrative Code, that cite it.

No admin code rule cites 25 U.S.C. § 1911.

0 CFOPs cite 25 U.S.C. § 1911

How DCF carries it out. A page opens in the CFOP reader with the citation highlighted.

No CFOP cites 25 U.S.C. § 1911.

3 sections of law cite 25 U.S.C. § 1911

Florida statutes and court rules that cite it, and federal law that cites it or is issued under it.

  1. 25 U.S.C. § 1918 Reassumption of jurisdiction over child custody proceedings (b)(2)
  2. 25 C.F.R. § 23.111 What are the notice requirements for a child-custody proceeding involving an Indian child? (d)(6)(vi)
  3. 25 C.F.R. § 23.137 Who can petition to invalidate an action for certain ICWA violations? (a)(b)(c)

Shading shows how often opinions cite each provision: rarely sometimes often most. Click a provision to list the opinions citing it.

(a) Exclusive jurisdiction. An Indian tribe shall have jurisdiction exclusive as to any State over any child custody proceeding involving an Indian child who resides or is domiciled within the reservation of such tribe, except where such jurisdiction is otherwise vested in the State by existing Federal law. Where an Indian child is a ward of a tribal court, the Indian tribe shall retain exclusive jurisdiction, notwithstanding the residence or domicile of the child.

(b) Transfer of proceedings; declination by tribal court. In any State court proceeding for the foster care placement of, or termination of parental rights to, an Indian child not domiciled or residing within the reservation of the Indian child's tribe, the court, in the absence of good cause to the contrary, shall transfer such proceeding to the jurisdiction of the tribe, absent objection by either parent, upon the petition of either parent or the Indian custodian or the Indian child's tribe: Provided, That such transfer shall be subject to declination by the tribal court of such tribe.

(c) State court proceedings; intervention. In any State court proceeding for the foster care placement of, or termination of parental rights to, an Indian child, the Indian custodian of the child and the Indian child's tribe shall have a right to intervene at any point in the proceeding.

(d) Full faith and credit to public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of Indian tribes. The United States, every State, every territory or possession of the United States, and every Indian tribe shall give full faith and credit to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of any Indian tribe applicable to Indian child custody proceedings to the same extent that such entities give full faith and credit to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of any other entity.

Source. (Pub. L. 95–608, title I, §101, Nov. 8, 1978, 92 Stat. 3071.)