In re Interest of C.C.

11 Citing cases

  1. In re M.A.

    No. 06-22-00011-CV (Tex. App. Aug. 17, 2022)

    "The ICWA applies to all state child custody proceedings involving an Indian child when the court knows or has reason to know an Indian child is involved." In re C.C., No. 12-17-00114-CV, 2017 WL 2822518, at *2 (Tex. App.-Tyler June 30, 2017, no pet.) (mem. op. & abatement order) (citing 25 U.S.C.A. § 1912(a));

  2. In re B.B.

    No. 06-22-00029-CV (Tex. App. Aug. 10, 2022)

    "An Indian child is defined by the ICWA as an 'unmarried person who is under age eighteen and is either (a) a member of an Indian tribe or (b) is eligible for membership in an Indian tribe and is the biological child of a member of an Indian tribe.'" In re C.C., No. 12-17-00114-CV, 2017 WL 2822518, at *2 (Tex. App.-Tyler June 30, 2017, no pet.) (mem. op. & abatement order) (quoting 25 U.S.C.A. § 1903(4)). "The ICWA, however, does not define what constitutes being a 'member' or 'being eligible for membership.'" Id.

  3. In re J.W.

    No. 06-20-00021-CV (Tex. App. Jul. 8, 2020)

    "An Indian child is defined by the ICWA as an 'unmarried person who is under age eighteen and is either (a) a member of an Indian tribe or (b) is eligible for membership in an Indian tribe and is the biological child of a member of an Indian tribe.'" In re C.C., No. 12-17-00114-CV, 2017 WL 2822518, at *2 (Tex. App.—Tyler June 30, 2017, no pet.) (mem. op.) (quoting 25 U.S.C.A. § 1903(4)). "The ICWA, however, does not define what constitutes being a 'member' or 'being eligible for membership.'"

  4. In re Interest of B.L.H.

    No. 06-19-00101-CV (Tex. App. Feb. 26, 2020)

    "The ICWA applies to all state child custody proceedings involving an Indian child when the court knows or has reason to know an Indian child is involved." In re C.C., No. 12-17-00114-CV, 2017 WL 2822518, at *2 (Tex. App.—Tyler June 30, 2017, no pet.) (mem. op.) (citing 25 U.S.C.A. § 1912(a)); In re R.R., Jr., 294 S.W.3d 213, 217 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2009, no pet.)). "An Indian child is defined by the ICWA as an 'unmarried person who is under age eighteen and is either (a) a member of an Indian tribe or (b) is eligible for membership in an Indian tribe and is the biological child of a member of an Indian tribe.'" Id. (quoting 25 U.S.C.A. § 1903(4)).

  5. In re A.W.

    No. 06-19-00024-CV (Tex. App. Aug. 14, 2019)

    "The Bureau of Indian Affairs [BIA] created guidelines for state courts to use in Indian child custody proceedings to assist with the interpretation of the ICWA." In re C.C., No. 12-17-00114-CV, 2017 WL 2822518, at *2 (Tex. App.—Tyler June 30, 2017, no pet.) (mem. op.) (citing Bureau of Indian Affairs Guidelines for State Courts; Indian Child Custody Proceedings (BIA Guidelines), 44 Fed. Reg. 67,584 (Nov. 26, 1979)). Under BIA Guidelines, "[p]roceedings in state courts involving the custody of Indian children shall follow strict procedures and meet stringent requirements to justify any result in an individual case contrary to these preferences."

  6. In re A.M.G.

    No. 06-19-00032-CV (Tex. App. Jun. 26, 2019)

    "The ICWA applies to all state child custody proceedings involving an Indian child when the court knows or has reason to know an Indian child is involved." In re C.C., No. 12-17-00114-CV, 2017 WL 2822518, at *2 (Tex. App.—Tyler June 30, 2017, no pet.) (mem. op.) (citing 25 U.S.C.A. § 1912(a)); In re R.R., Jr., 294 S.W.3d 213, 217 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2009, no pet.)). "An Indian child is defined by the ICWA as an 'unmarried person who is under age eighteen and is either (a) a member of an Indian tribe or (b) is eligible for membership in an Indian tribe and is the biological child of a member of an Indian tribe.'" Id. (quoting 25 U.S.C.A. § 1903(4)).

  7. E. J. v. Tex. Dep't of Family & Protective Servs.

    NO. 03-18-00473-CV (Tex. App. Dec. 18, 2018)   Cited 1 times

    Here, the unchallenged findings that termination of Mother's parental rights was warranted under subsections 161.001(b)(1)(D) and (E), and that termination was in the child's best interest are sufficient to support the court's termination order. See A.V., 113 S.W.3d at 362; B. H.-L., 2018 Tex. App. LEXIS 1818, at *2-3 (unchallenged findings that parent committed conduct satisfying one predicate ground for termination and that termination was in children's best interest were sufficient to support termination order); In re C.C., No. 12-17-00114-CV, 2017 Tex. App. LEXIS 6036, at *11 (Tex. App.—Tyler June 30, 2017, no pet.) (mem. op.) (unchallenged finding that termination of father's parental rights was in children's best interest combined with unchallenged predicate grounds for termination sufficed to support court's judgment). Thus, we overrule Mother's sixth issue.

  8. In re J.R.H.

    No. 06-18-00052-CV (Tex. App. Oct. 12, 2018)

    "The ICWA applies to all state child custody proceedings involving an Indian child when the court knows or has reason to know an Indian child is involved." In re C.C., No. 12-17-00114-CV, 2017 WL 2822518, at *2 (Tex. App.—Tyler June 30, 2017, no pet.) (mem. op.) (citing 25 U.S.C.A. § 1912(a) (Westlaw current through PL 115-231); In re R.R., Jr., 294 S.W.3d 213, 217 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2009, no pet.)). "An Indian child is defined by the ICWA as an 'unmarried person who is under age eighteen and is either (a) a member of an Indian tribe or (b) is eligible for membership in an Indian tribe and is the biological child of a member of an Indian tribe.'" Id. (quoting 25 U.S.C.A. § 1903(4) (Westlaw current through PL 115-231)).

  9. In re of

    No. 06-17-00094-CV (Tex. App. Apr. 18, 2018)

    "The ICWA applies to all state child custody proceedings involving an Indian child when the court knows or has reason to know an Indian child is involved." In re C.C., No. 12-17-00114-CV, 2017 WL 2822518, at *2 (Tex. App.—Tyler June 30, 2017, no pet.) (mem. op. & order) (citing 25 U.S.C.A. § 1912(a) (Westlaw current through PL 115-40); In re R.R., Jr., 294 S.W.3d 213, 217 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2009, no pet.)). "An Indian child is defined by the ICWA as an 'unmarried person who is under age eighteen and is either (a) a member of an Indian tribe or (b) is eligible for membership in an Indian tribe and is the biological child of a member of an Indian tribe.'" Id. (quoting 25 U.S.C.A. § 1903(4) (Westlaw current through PL 115-40)).

  10. B. H.-L. v. Tex. Dep't of Family & Protective Servs.

    NO. 03-17-00772-CV (Tex. App. Mar. 13, 2018)   Cited 1 times
    Concluding that father waived any complaint about evidentiary sufficiency for one predicate finding by failing to challenge evidentiary sufficiency as to that finding

    Therefore, the trial court's unchallenged findings that B.H.-L. committed conduct satisfying Paragraph (P) and that termination was in the children's best interest are sufficient to support the court's termination order. See In re C.C., No. 12-17-00114-CV, 2017 WL 3184319, at *3 (Tex. App.—Tyler June 30, 2017, no pet.) (mem. op.) ("Because B.C. does not challenge any of the predicate grounds for termination or the best interest finding, these findings are binding on this court. Therefore, the unchallenged finding that termination is in the children's best interest along with the unchallenged predicate grounds for termination suffice to support the trial court's judgment.") (citations omitted).