CHILDREN AND THE LAW
...Dependency Petitions
......Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA)
.........Applicability
............Procedure
10 Cards On This Topic:

As CRC 5.484(c)(2) merely directs the court to pursue tribal membership for C who is an Indian child per ICWA, to prevent the breakup of the Indian family and to qualify C for tribal services, it is consistent with state law and valid.

No error in concluding court had no reason to know C might fall under ICWA where F's mother's heritage information was too vague, attenuated and speculative to give court any reason to believe C might be an Indian child.

Implicit ruling that ICWA does not apply suffices where reviewing court confident that juvenile court considered issue and there was no question but that an explicit ruling would conform to the implicit one.

Transfer of a juvenile dependency case from state court to tribal court per 25 USC 1911(b) deprives CA courts of jurisdiction over dependency case and precludes any appeal from transfer order.

As ICWA does not require Interior Secretary's approval of tribal court, transfer of juvenile dependency case from County Court to Tribal Court was properly granted.

DCFS compliance with express ICWA notice requirements won't suffice if appellate record reveals dept. had identifying Indian heritage info it didn't share with tribes of which dependent C could be a member.

Juvenile courts should determine in first instance, explicitly or implicitly, whether ICWA applies. Here, not making determination harmless error as BIA could not trace M's Indian heritage and ICWA clearly did not apply.

Absent showing of change in F's parenting or Navajo Nation recommendation, court needn't repeat 25 U.S.C. §1912 (f) “detriment” finding at 366.26 hearing before terminating parental rights.

Writ of error coram vobis re termination of parental rights denied where F failed to prove unrecognized error below or that C came within ICWA.

ICWA applies only to tribes registered with Secretary of Interior.