Chapter 13 Indian Child Welfare Act
In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

107 Indian Child Welfare Act 107 P.572, n.12. Add the following to line 6 of the footnote after “see”: In re Noreen G., 105 Cal. Rptr. 3d 521, 545 (Ct. App. 2010) (although “ICWA itself does not require an inquiry, where, as here, no evidence of an Indian child has been presented[,]” relevant state law imposes “ ‘an affirmative and continuing duty to inquire whether a [dependent] child . . . is or may be an Indian child in all dependency proceedings”); In re R.R., 103 Cal. Rptr. 3d 110, 122–24 (Ct. App. 2009) (ICWA did not preempt extension of its protections to delinquency proceedings otherwise excluded from scope of “child custody proceedings” in 25 U.S.C. § 1903(1); In re J.B., 100 Cal. Rptr. 3d 679 (Ct. App. 2009) (“Indian child custody proceeding” as used in state statute refers to “child custody proceeding” as defined in ICWA and thereby does not encompass removal of custody from mother and placement with father); In re Damian C., 100 Cal. Rptr. 3d 110, 112 (Ct. App. 2009) (state statutory amendments did not modify “reason to know” standard from ICWA’s; “[i]nstead, the legislative history reveals an intention to standardize the interpretation of ICWA provisions and ICWA inquiry and noticing practice throughout the state and to broaden the statutory interpretation”); In re A.A., 84 Cal. Rptr. 3d 841 (Ct. App. 2008) (discussing various issues with reference to both ICWA and complementary state Indian child-related custody proceeding provisions, including adequate efforts to provide remedial services, the “Indian child exception” established under California statute, and child placement); Add the following to the eighth-to-last line of the footnote after “see also”: In re T.S., 96 Cal. Rptr. 3d 706, 712–13 (Ct. App. 2009) (no state law-imposed requirement to adhere to tribal placement plan without conducting independent assessment of detriment to the involved child, and agency properly declined to follow plan which failed to identify any family member not disqualified from consideration by virtue of criminal records); Chapter 13 Indian Child Welfare Act 108 2011 Supplement—American Indian Law Deskbook, Fourth Edition Add the following to the fourth-to-last line of the footnote after “Compare”: In re L.N.B.-L, Nos. 28850-2-II & 38854-5-II, 2010 WL 3075179, at *10 (Wash. Ct. App. Aug. 3, 2010) (declining to extend scope of state statute requiring notice to “ ‘all tribes’ ” to encompass non-federally recognized groups); In re M.S., 2010 OK 46, 2010 WL 2376323, at *9 (Okla. June 15, 2010) (Oklahoma Indian Child Welfare Act requires transfer of all child custody proceedings, not merely involuntary proceedings, to tribal court absent good cause not to do so); P.573, n.14. Add the following to line 1 of the footnote after “see”: In re C.C.M., 202 P.3d 971, 976–77 (Wash. Ct. App. 2009) (custody proceeding brought by Indian custodian and his spouse constituted a foster care proceeding since purpose was “to divest [the father] of his legal right to custody”); In re N.B., 199 P.3d 16, 18–19 (Colo. Ct. App. 2007) (citing to, and agreeing with, decisions from other jurisdictions that deem step-parent adoptions “where a child will remain with one biological parent after the adoption” subject to ICWA); P.574, n.17. Add the following to line 11 of the footnote after “cf.”: In re J.S.B., 214 P.3d 827, 832 (Or. Ct. App. 2009) (new active-efforts determination required when modified permanency plan issued two months after original plan; “in light of the policies of the ICWA to afford an opportunity for reunification at every dispositional step that could result in contributing to the permanent removal of children subject to its protections, that it was incumbent on the juvenile court at the August hearing to either make new findings . . . or to find that the circumstances regarding reunification had not changed since the last hearing”); Danielle A. v. State Dep’t of Health & Soc. Servs., 215 P.3d 349, 354 (Alaska 2009) (extensions of child custody orders did not constitute new child custody proceeding that required compliance with 25 U.S.C. § 1912(e) because “ICWA does not address custody extensions” and “the issue [here] is extending [agency] custody so [mother and child] may reunify gradually, not removal”); P.574, n.18. Add the following to line 4 of the footnote after the semicolon: In re Esther V., 248 P.3d 863, 869 (N.M...