Legal Opinion
In re C.R.H.
Alaska Supreme Court
Decided August 31, 2001No. S-9677PublishedCited by 7 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
FABE, Chief Justice.
I. INTRODUCTION
Under subsection 1911(b) of the Indian Child Welfare Act1 (ICWA), state courts must transfer certain child custody cases to tribal courts unless either the parents or tribe object, or there exists good cause to decline transfer. Following our decisions in Native Village of Nenama v. State, Department of Health & Social Services and subsequent cases, however, Alaska Native Villages have been precluded from accepting jurisdiction over ICWA cases.2 Neither Nenana nor later cases affirming it included analysis of the language and structure of ICWA's…
2Cases cited12 opinions
- Piper Aircraft Co. v. ReynoSupreme Court of the United States · 1982
- Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians v. HolyfieldSupreme Court of the United States · 1989
- Iowa Mutual Insurance v. LaPlanteSupreme Court of the United States · 1987
- Merrion v. Jicarilla Apache TribeSupreme Court of the United States · 1982
- John v. BakerAlaska Supreme Court · 1999
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by7 opinions
- State v. Native Village of TananaAlaska Supreme Court · 2011
- In Re CRHAlaska Supreme Court · 2001
- State v. Central Council of Tlingit and Haida Indian Tribes of AlaskaAlaska Supreme Court · 2016
- Dinwiddie DSS v. NunnallySupreme Court of Virginia · 2014
- Rosalind M. v. State of Alaska, Department of Family & Community Services, Office of Children's Services and Ingrid A. (Mother) and Togiak Traditional CouncilAlaska Supreme Court · 2024
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.