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.
25
U.S.C.A. § 1914
United States Code Annotated
Title 25. Indians
Chapter 21. Indian Child Welfare (Refs & Annos)
Subchapter I. Child Custody Proceedings
§
1914. Petition to court of competent jurisdiction to invalidate action
upon showing of certain violations
Any Indian child who is the subject of any action for foster care placement or termination of parental rights under State law, any parent or Indian custodian from whose custody such child was removed, and the Indian child's tribe may petition any court of competent jurisdiction to invalidate such action upon a showing that such action violated any provision of sections 1911, 1912, and 1913 of this title.
CREDIT(S) (Pub.L. 95-608, Title I, § 104, Nov. 8, 1978, 92 Stat. 3072.)
HISTORICAL AND STATUTORY NOTES
Revision Notes and Legislative Reports
1978 Acts. House Report No. 95-1386, see 1978 U.S. Code Cong. and Adm. News, p. 7530.
Fighting over Indian children: The uses and abuses of jurisdictional ambiguity. Barbara Ann Atwood, 36 UCLA L.Rev. 1051 (1989).
LIBRARY REFERENCES
Indians 
6(2),
32(11).
Key Number System Topic No. 209.
RESEARCH REFERENCES
ALR Library
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.
Encyclopedias
2 Am. Jur. 2d Adoption § 119, Requirements Under Indian Child Welfare Act.
Am. Jur. 2d Indians § 145, Generally; Tribe's Jurisdiction.
Treatises and Practice Aids
Federal Procedure, Lawyers Edition § 46:477, Standing to Invalidate Proceedings.
Abstention from jurisdiction 7
Abstention from jurisdiction - State judgment review 8
Construction with other laws 1
Persons entitled to maintain action 6
State judgment review, abstention from jurisdiction 8
Termination of parental rights 5
1. Construction with other laws
Statute [25 U.S.C.A. § 1914] providing that any Indian child who is the subject of any action for foster care placement or termination of parental rights under state law, any parent or custodian from whose custody child was removed, and Indian child's tribe may petition any court of competent jurisdiction to invalidate action did not make inapplicable the full faith and credit provisions of 28 U.S.C.A. § 1738; thus, tribe's taking appeal to state Supreme Court of order allowing non-Indian couple to adopt child the tribe contended was subject to Indian Child Welfare Act [Indian Child Welfare Act of 1978, §§ 2-204, 25 U.S.C.A. §§ 1901-1934] foreclosed tribe from relitigating in the issue in later federal district court action. Kiowa Tribe of Oklahoma v. Lewis, C.A.10 (Kan.) 1985, 777 F.2d 587, certiorari denied 107 S.Ct. 247, 479 U.S. 872, 93 L.Ed.2d 171.
"Custody," within meaning
of statute granting parents "from whose custody such child was removed"
right to challenge removal of custody, referred to parent's legal, rather
than physical, relationship with Indian child. Matter of Adoption
of a Child of Indian Heritage, N.J.1988, 543 A.2d 925, 111 N.J. 155. Indians 6.6(1)
In adoption proceeding involving
adoption of non-Indian mother's illegitimate child,
a five-sixteenths Kiowa Indian by blood, by a non-Indian adoptive couple,
trial court did not abuse its discretion under this chapter by denying
petition of putative father, father's parents, and Kiowa Tribe for a change
of temporary custody. Matter of Adoption of Baby Boy L., Kan.1982,
643 P.2d 168, 231 Kan. 199. Adoption 13
Alleged violations of sections
1911, 1912 and 1913 of this title, in temporary custody proceedings did
not require invalidation of subsequent permanent custody proceedings which
resulted in termination of parental rights, where district court in the
permanent custody proceedings, even though it noted the prior temporary
custody proceedings in its findings of fact, did not rely upon those proceedings,
where permanent custody hearing involved entirely different witnesses
and was conducted by a different judge, and where the record contained
overwhelming evidence apart from the temporary custody order to support
the termination of parental rights. Matter of M.E.M., Mont.1984,
679 P.2d 1241, 209 Mont. 192. Infants 253
5. Termination of parental rights
Invalidation
of an Indian parental rights termination may not be accomplished by showing
a violation of placement preferences set forth in section of Indian Child
Welfare Act. B.R.T. v. Executive Director of Social Service Bd.
North Dakota, N.D.1986, 391 N.W.2d 594. Indians 6.6(1)
6. Persons entitled to maintain action
Indian mother was not deprived
of standing to challenge alleged violations of Indian Child Welfare Act
by failure of tribe to join in appeal of termination of her parental rights
in light of statute's intent of insuring compliance with minimal federal
standards. Matter of Kreft, Mich.App.1986, 384 N.W.2d 843, 148 Mich.App.
682. Indians 6.6(3)
Indian father who had never had
custody of or been involved with his daughters, aged five and six, was
not entitled to invalidate foster care placement of daughters under Indian
Child Welfare Act; children had been removed from custody of non-Indian
mother, and Act applies only in those situations where Indian children
are being removed from existing Indian family environment. Matter of S.C.,
Okla.1992, 833 P.2d 1249. Indians 6.6(1)
7. Abstention from jurisdiction
Provision
of Indian Child Welfare Act granting any court of competent jurisdiction
authority to consider challenge to foster care placements and terminations
of parental rights does not permit federal court interdiction of ongoing
state custody dispute involving Indian children in disregard of Younger abstention doctrine's principals of comity and federalism, as duplicitous
and protracted litigation runs counter to purpose of expeditious determination
of Indian child custody, and, thus, while ICWA provides minimum federal
standards in state Indian child custody proceedings, it does not oust
states of traditional jurisdiction over Indian children. Morrow
v. Winslow, C.A.10 (Okla.) 1996, 94 F.3d 1386, certiorari denied 117 S.Ct.
1311, 520 U.S. 1143, 137 L.Ed.2d 475. Federal Courts 54
Rooker-Feldman doctrine did not bar federal district court's review of state court's
decision, terminating Native American mother's parental rights and placing
her child in foster care, for alleged violation of Indian Child Welfare
Act (ICWA). Doe v. Mann, N.D.Cal.2003, 285 F.Supp.2d 1229. Courts 509
Tribal
member was not precluded, under either res judicata or collateral estoppel
principles, from bringing federal court action challenging state court's
child custody determination as violative of Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA);
issue had not been raised or adjudicated in state court. Doe
v. Mann, N.D.Cal.2003, 285 F.Supp.2d 1229. Judgment 828.16(4)
25 U.S.C.A. § 1914, 25 USCA § 1914
Approved 07-28-05