Browse cases by category
- Attorneys & Legal Services
- Bankruptcy
- Civil Procedure & Administrative Law
- Civil Rights
- Consumer
- Criminal
- Disability
- Economic Development
- Education
- Elections
- Employment
- Environmental Justice
- Evidence
- Family Law
- Food Programs
- Government and Governmental Services
- Guardianship & Conservatorship
- Health
- Housing
- Immigration
- Juveniles
- License (Auto & Others)
- Mental Health
- Migrants
- Native Americans
- Other
- Prisons
- Public Utilities & Energy
- Rural Issues
- Senior Citizens
- Social Security & SSI
- Taxation
- Torts
- Unemployment Compensation & Unemployment Insurance
- Veterans & Military
- Welfare
- Wills & Estates
- Workforce Development
San Diego County Dep't of Social Servs. v. L.
51 Cal. Rptr 2d 16 (Ct. App. 1996); No. D024180 (Cal. Ct. App. Mar. 7, 1996) ; Clearinghouse Number: 51136
Description
Indian Children's Parent Not Domiciled on Reservation May Veto Transfer of Dependency Proceeding to Tribal Jurisdiction
Abstract
In this child dependency case, the California Court of Appeal has
held that the trial court erred in suspending appellant
mother's visitation and in transferring jurisdiction to the
Navajo Nation over her objection. Appellant mother's twin
daughters were removed from her custody and placed in foster care
pursuant to allegations that mother had abused the twins'
half-brother and that mother and father, a registered Navajo
Indian, engaged in violent confrontations. At a six-month review,
the juvenile court suspended mother's visitation; later it
transferred jurisdiction to the Navajo Nation pursuant to the
Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA), 25 U.S.C. §§ 1901 et
seq. The appellate court found that mother was clearly severely
troubled but that her deficiencies did not clearly affect
visitation or adversely affect her children in connection with
visitation. Mother had veto power over the transfer of jurisdiction
to the Navajo Nation, and this veto power did not frustrate the
policy of the ICWA. Section 1911(b) accommodates the interests of
the tribe as to nonreservation children by affording it rights to
notice and intervention as well as placement preference and by
giving the parent ultimate say over jurisdiction but barring the
parent from applying the ICWA in a state court proceeding. The
statutory scheme protects the tribe's significant rights in the
Indian child while honoring the child's fundamental rights.
Section 1911(b) gives an Indian child's parent not residing on
the reservation veto power over any decision to transfer to the
tribe's jurisdiction a proceeding for foster care placement or
termination of parental rights.
