Source: https://www.narf.org/nill/documents/icwa/federal/usca/1911.html
Timestamp: 2019-04-22 08:14:52+00:00

Document:
Reprinted from Westlaw with permission of Thomson/West. If you wish to check the currency of this case [or statute], you may do so by using KeyCite on Westlaw by visiting www.westlaw.com.
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.
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.
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.
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.
1978 Acts. House Report No. 95-1386, see 1978 U.S. Code Cong. and Adm. News, p. 7530.
Crucible of sovereignty: Analyzing issues of tribal jurisdiction. Frank Pommersheim, 31 Ariz.L.Rev. 329 (1989).
Fighting over Indian children: The uses and abuses of jurisdictional ambiguity. Barbara Ann Atwood, 36 UCLA L.Rev. 1051 (1989).
In re Junious M.: The California application of the Indian Child Welfare Act. Note, 8 J.Juv.L. 78 (1984).
Indian Child Welfare Act: Guiding the determination of good cause to depart from the statutory placement preferences. 70 Wash.L.Rev. 1151 (1995).
Indian Child Welfare Act of 1978: Does it apply to the adoption of an illegitimate Indian child? 38 Cath.U.L.Rev. 511 (1989).
Indian Child Welfare Act of 1978: Protecting essential tribal interests. Comment, 60 Colo.L.Rev. 131 (1989).
Note, voluntary adoptions under Indian Child Welfare Act of 1978: Balancing the interests of children, families, and tribes. 63 S.Cal.L.Rev. 213 (1989).
Protecting abused children: A judge's perspective on public law deprived child proceedings and the impact of the Indian Child Welfare Acts. Edward L. Thompson, 15 Am.Indian L.Rev. 1 (1990).
Representing the Native American: Culture, jurisdiction, and the Indian Child Welfare Act. Jeanne Louise Carriere, 79 Iowa L.Rev. 585 (1994).
Treating tribes as states under federal statutes in the environmental arena: Where laws of nature and natural law collide. Richard A. Monette, 21 Vt.L.Rev. 111 (1996).
Key Number System Topic No. 209.
73 ALR, Fed. 448, What is "Interest" Relating to Property or Transaction Which is Subject of Action Sufficient to Satisfy that Requirement for Intervention as Matter of Right Under Rule 24(A)(2) of Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
89 ALR 5th 195, Construction and Application of Indian Child Welfare Act of 1978 (ICWA) (25 U.S.C.A. §§ 1901 et seq.) Upon Child Custody Determinations.
21 ALR 5th 396, Inconvenience of Forum as Ground for Declining Jurisdiction Under § 7 of the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction Act (UCCJA).
33 ALR 3rd 176, Requirements as to Residence or Domicil of Adoptee or Adoptive Parent for Purposes of Adoption.
2 Am. Jur. 2d Adoption § 27, Generally.
2 Am. Jur. 2d Adoption § 129, Intervention.
24A Am. Jur. 2d Divorce and Separation § 1156, Federal Constitutional and Statutory Requirements; Full Faith and Credit.
25 Am. Jur. 2d Domicil § 1, Domicil.
25 Am. Jur. 2d Domicil § 9, Law Governing Determination.
Am. Jur. 2d Indians § 145, Generally; Tribe's Jurisdiction.
Am. Jur. 2d Indians § 147, Full Faith and Credit.
14 Causes of Action 817, Cause of Action to Withdraw or Revoke Parental Consent to Adoption.
Federal Procedure, Lawyers Edition § 46:469, Exclusive Jurisdiction of Tribes.
Federal Procedure, Lawyers Edition § 46:476, Involuntary Termination of Parental Rights.
Federal Procedure, Lawyers Edition § 46:477, Standing to Invalidate Proceedings.
Federal Procedure, Lawyers Edition § 46:478, Applicability of Other Laws.
Federal Procedure, Lawyers Edition § 46:480, Referral or Transferal Jurisdiction.
Federal Procedure, Lawyers Edition § 46:482, Partial Retrocession.
Federal Procedure, Lawyers Edition § 46:484, Jurisdiction Other Than Transferal Jurisdiction.
Subsec. (b) of this section was not applicable where initial placement of children in foster care took place prior to enactment of this chapter and, though mother thereafter admitted portions of dependency and neglect petition and children were adjudicated dependent and neglected, those actions were not subsequent proceedings because they did not place the children in different foster care, did not terminate the mother's parental rights, and did not place the children in a preadoptive or adoptive situation. People in Interest of J.L.G., Colo.App.1984, 687 P.2d 477.
Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA) did not require juvenile court to grant tribe's second request for transfer of jurisdiction, with regard to dependency proceedings affecting Native American children, after transfer had been granted to and declined by tribe when it learned that transfer would entail responsibility for foster care payments; once tribe received jurisdiction, its rights under ICWA were met, and it was not in children's best interest to subject them to virtual recall by tribal authorities or to allow tribal authorities to disrupt bond formed with prospective adoptive family. In re Jacqueline L., Cal.App. 4 Dist.1995, 39 Cal.Rptr.2d 178, 33 Cal.App.4th 325, review denied and ordered not to be officially published, certiorari denied 116 S.Ct. 386, 516 U.S. 946, 133 L.Ed.2d 308.
This section deals with the adoption and foster care of Indian children, but does not deal with and, hence, does not preclude a paternity determination and child support enforcement when a state is a party and the other party is an Indian. State ex rel. Dept. of Human Services v. Jojola, N.M.1983, 660 P.2d 590, 99 N.M. 500, appeal dismissed, certiorari denied 104 S.Ct. 49, 464 U.S. 803, 78 L.Ed.2d 69.

References: § 7
 § 27
 § 129
 § 1156
 § 1
 § 9
 § 145
 § 147
 § 46
 § 46
 § 46
 § 46
 § 46
 § 46
 § 46
 v.