CHILDREN AND THE LAW
...Dependency Petitions
......Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA)
.........Notice
............Notice Not Required
12 Cards On This Topic:

As ICWA does not cover allegation of membership in tribe not recognized by federal govt., neither HHS nor juvenile court was under a duty to comply with ICWA notice provisions.

Without a clear, contrary announcement from the court, it is presumed that a placement of a W&IC 602 ward is based on the ward’s delinquent conduct, rather than conditions in the home, and thus not subject to ICWA notice requirements.

Though court should have ensured compliance with ICWA notice requirements re C's Indian custodian, no adverse hearing occurred between court's becoming aware of custodial status and before status revoked; no ICWA notice violation.

F's assertion that there was a "possibility" C's great-great-grandfather "was Indian," without more, was too vague and speculative to require ICWA notice to BIA, particularly since F later retracted assertion in court.

Until biological parentage established, alleged F's claim of Indian heritage doesn't trigger ICWA notice requirement because, absent biological connection, C cannot claim Indian heritage through alleged F.

Where no evidence C is an Indian child, reversing termination of parental rights just to send notice would only delay permanency rather than further important goals and ensure the procedural safeguards intended by ICWA.

W&IC 306.6 does not require either court or DHHS to send notice to tribe which is not federally recognized; tribe free to request permission to appear if it so chooses.

Having made no objection below to additional errors in ICWA notice, mother forfeited her right to appeal reinstated orders terminating her parental rights.

No continuing ICWA notice to tribe throughout proceedings required where juvenile court did not initially err in ruling ICWA did not apply.

ICWA requires notice only when DCFS seeks permanent foster care or parental rights termination, not ••anytime•• possible or actual Indian child is involved in dependency proceeding.

Court did not fail to comply with ICWA notice requirements where paternal grandmother's vague information re heritage was insufficient to give court reason to believe Cs might be Indian children.

Termination affirmed despite required notices not being strictly in accord with ICWA where Tribe intervened, appeared generally and participated fully in trial.