Can a state court exercise emergency removal jurisdiction over an Indian child who is domiciled on or resident of a reservation, while the child is on the reservation?
A state court can only exercise emergency removal jurisdiction over an Indian child who is domiciled on or resident of a reservation while the child is on the reservation, if the state was granted jurisdiction under Public Law 280, or other federal law and exclusive jurisdiction was not subsequently reassumed by the tribe under 1918, or if such state action has been agreed to by the tribe and state under an ICWA agreement pursuant to 1919. Doe v. Mann (Mann II), 415 F.3d 1038 (9th Cir. 2005). Practice Tip: ICWA practitioners should note that other federal laws at times may limit a specific tribes jurisdiction. For example the Passamoquoddy and Pennobscot Tribes of Maine are subject to a specific statutory provision concerning their jurisdiction over child custody proceedings, including emergency proceedings, arising on their respective reservations. The State of Maine has exclusive jurisdiction on those reservations until the tribes assume exclusive jurisdiction from the State. 25 U.S.
Related Questions
- Can a state court exercise emergency removal jurisdiction over an Indian child who is domiciled on or resident of a reservation, while the child is on the reservation?
- When does a state emergency removal or placement involving a resident or domiciled reservation Indian child terminate?
- What are the requirements that provide a state court with temporary jurisdiction over emergency removal proceedings?
