Pending court proceedings25 U.S.C. § 1912
5 opinions cite 25 U.S.C. § 1912
-
Adoptive Couple v. Baby Girl 570 U.S. 637 · US570-637 · U.S. Supreme Court 2013
ICWA's continued-custody and active-efforts provisions do not bar termination where the Indian father never had custody, and adoption preferences apply only if others seek adoption.
…in the absence of a heightened showing that serious harm to the Indian child is likely to result from the parent’s “continued custody” of the child, 25 U. S. C. §1912(f); conditions involuntary termination of parental rights with respect to an Indian child on a showing that remedial efforts have been made to prevent the…
-
Santosky v. Kramer 455 U.S. 745 · US455-745 · U.S. Supreme Court 1982
· cited by 9171 in all courts
Supreme Court held due process requires at least clear and convincing evidence to terminate parental rights, vacating New York's preponderance-based termination and remanding.
…of parental rights solely upon "evidence beyond a reasonable doubt." Indian Child Welfare Act of 1978, Pub. L. 95-608, § 102 (f), 92 Stat. 3072 , 25 U. S. C. § 1912 (f) (1976 ed., Supp. IV). The question here is whether *751 New York's "fair preponderance of the evidence" standard is constitutionally sufficient. B…
-
S.H. v. Department of Children & Families 6D2025-1795 · 6th DCA 2026
Termination affirmed because ICWA's beyond-a-reasonable-doubt standard applies only to its own finding and does not displace Florida's clear and convincing standard.
… 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. 25 U.S.C. § 1912(f). The Mother contends that the burden of proof set forth in this provision of federal law preempts the clear and convincing burden of proof that applies to…
-
G.L. v. Department of Children & Families 80 So. 3d 1065 · 5D11-1502 · 5th DCA 2012
· 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.
…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 termination,…
-
J.P.H. v. Department of Children & Families 39 So. 3d 560 · 1D10-1725 · 1st DCA 2010
· cited by 3 in all courts
Termination reversed because the trial court ignored the Indian Child Welfare Act's beyond-a-reasonable-doubt standard and wrongly denied the tribe's intervention for lacking a Florida attorney.
…parental rights. Appellees forthrightly concede that because the proceedings involved Indian children within the meaning of the Indian Child Welfare Act, 25 U.S.C. § 1912 , et seq., the trial court erred in not applying the standards and requirements of the Act. Most notably the trial court did not apply 25 U.S.C.…
No opinion cites this provision by number.
0 admin code rules cite 25 U.S.C. § 1912
DCF's rules in Chapter 65C, Florida Administrative Code, that cite it.
No admin code rule cites 25 U.S.C. § 1912.
0 CFOPs cite 25 U.S.C. § 1912
How DCF carries it out. A page opens in the CFOP reader with the citation highlighted.
No CFOP cites 25 U.S.C. § 1912.
4 sections of law cite 25 U.S.C. § 1912
Florida statutes and court rules that cite it, and federal law that cites it or is issued under it.
Shading shows how often opinions cite each provision: rarely sometimes often most. Click a provision to list the opinions citing it.
(a) Notice; time for commencement of proceedings; additional time for preparation. In any involuntary proceeding in a State court, where the court knows or has reason to know that an Indian child is involved, the party seeking the foster care placement of, or termination of parental rights to, an Indian child shall notify the parent or Indian custodian and the Indian child's tribe, by registered mail with return receipt requested, of the pending proceedings and of their right of intervention. If the identity or location of the parent or Indian custodian and the tribe cannot be determined, such notice shall be given to the Secretary in like manner, who shall have fifteen days after receipt to provide the requisite notice to the parent or Indian custodian and the tribe. No foster care placement or termination of parental rights proceeding shall be held until at least ten days after receipt of notice by the parent or Indian custodian and the tribe or the Secretary: Provided, That the parent or Indian custodian or the tribe shall, upon request, be granted up to twenty additional days to prepare for such proceeding.
(b) Appointment of counsel. In any case in which the court determines indigency, the parent or Indian custodian shall have the right to court-appointed counsel in any removal, placement, or termination proceeding. The court may, in its discretion, appoint counsel for the child upon a finding that such appointment is in the best interest of the child. Where State law makes no provision for appointment of counsel in such proceedings, the court shall promptly notify the Secretary upon appointment of counsel, and the Secretary, upon certification of the presiding judge, shall pay reasonable fees and expenses out of funds which may be appropriated pursuant to section 13 of this title.
(c) Examination of reports or other documents. Each party to a foster care placement or termination of parental rights proceeding under State law involving an Indian child shall have the right to examine all reports or other documents filed with the court upon which any decision with respect to such action may be based.
(d) Remedial services and rehabilitative programs; preventive measures. Any party seeking to effect a foster care placement of, or termination of parental rights to, an Indian child under State law shall 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 that these efforts have proved unsuccessful.
(e) Foster care placement orders; evidence; determination of damage to child. No foster care placement may be ordered in such proceeding in the absence of a determination, supported by clear and convincing evidence, including testimony of qualified expert witnesses, that the continued custody of the child by the parent or Indian custodian is likely to result in serious emotional or physical damage to the child.
(f) Parental rights termination orders; evidence; determination of damage to child. No termination of parental rights may be ordered in such proceeding in the absence of a determination, supported by evidence beyond a reasonable doubt, including testimony of qualified expert witnesses, that the continued custody of the child by the parent or Indian custodian is likely to result in serious emotional or physical damage to the child.
Source. (Pub. L. 95–608, title I, §102, Nov. 8, 1978, 92 Stat. 3071.)