CHILDREN AND THE LAW
...Dependency Petitions
......Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA)
.........Placement of Children
17 Cards On This Topic:

The Indian child shall also be placed within his or her home.

Trial court applied proper burden of proof in finding that de facto parents did not prove by clear and convincing evidence that there was good cause to depart from the ICWA's placement preferences.

Though court and Agency erred in investigating Uncle's special Indian custodian status, error harmless as mother extinguished that temporary status by revoking it.

Good cause exception to ICWA placement preferences may be found when clear and convincing evidence shows a significant risk C will suffer serious harm as a result of changing placement from defacto parents' home.

HSSD and court erred in finding grandfather's contributing to delinquency of a minor conviction was nonexemptible for Indian child's placement purposes.

HSSD's handling of the Indian custodian designation forms did not mandate reversal; grandmother did not become C's custodian because of the forms, which designated mother custodian and were not signed by F.

Although Tribe did not object when court did not include TCA option in its assessments, and forfeited claim, the option was clearly discussed by parties and court throughout proceedings, and Tribe did not pursue it.

A placement that presents a geographical barrier to visitation is presumptively not within reasonable proximity to the Indian child's home per 25 USC 1915(b) and W&IC 361.31(b).

State ct.'s determination of ICWA placement preferences does not infringe on tribal sovereignty.

Absent a finding that tribal customary adoption would be detrimental to C, trial court erred in failing to select it as a permanent plan in this case.

Good cause existed to place C in Indian foster home approved by non-Indian licensing authority instead of with Indian grandmother.

Well w/in juvenile court's discretion not to find exception to adoption based on Tribe's identification of guardianship as permanent plan where no family or tribal members suitable for placement and adoption achieved same goals.

Substantial evidence supported juvenile court's finding good cause to deviate from placement preference of Tribe, ICWA expert and HHS and place C with nonrelative.

Where no suitable member of Cs' extended family, nor any other member of Choctaw Nation, available for placement, placement with PAPs satisfied ICWA requirements.

ICWA neither expressly or impliedly restricts super. court in its good cause evaluation to the considerations contained in federal guidelines; Congress explicitly intended to give state courts flexibility in determining placement.

Tribe waived issue of Cs' placement with non-Indian grandmother instead of with Indian great-grandmother; even if not waived, no error in court's placement orders.

"Repatriation" to Reservation of C of assimilated parents, solely because of C's 1/4 Minn. Chippewa genetic heritage, was constitutionally impermissible application of ICWA.