In re R.M.W

3 Citing cases

  1. In re A.H.

    No. 04-21-00367-CV (Tex. App. Feb. 23, 2022)   Cited 2 times

    It imposes a duty on parties seeking foster placement or parental rights termination to notify the relevant tribeiii when the trial court knows or has a reason to know that the child is an Indian childiv. See In re T.R., 491 S.W.3d at 850 (citing 25 U.S.C. § 1912(a)); accord 25 C.F.R. § 23.11; In re R.R., Jr., 294 S.W.3d 213, 220 (Tex. App.-Fort Worth 2009, no pet.); but see In re R.M.W., 188 S.W.3d 831, 832 (Tex. App.-Texarkana 2006, no pet.) (declining to apply ICWA where no evidence in the record suggested that children met the Act's definition of Indian children).

  2. In re R.R

    294 S.W.3d 213 (Tex. App. 2009)   Cited 102 times
    Holding trial court had reason to believe children were Indian children when mother testified that grandmother was a registered member of Kiowa Indian Nation

    We have reviewed each of these cases and the facts in all of them are distinguishable from the present facts. See In re R.M.W., 188 S.W.3d 831, 832 (Tex.App.-Texarkana 2006, no pet.) (failing to mention, recognize, or apply Guidelines); see also In re Johanson, 156 Mich. App. 608, 613-14, 402 N.W.2d 13, 16 (Ct. App. 1986) (affirming direct appeal of termination order when mother was not member of tribe prior to order and no evidence existed in record that trial court had any reason to believe Indian children were involved); In re Guardianship of J.O., 327 N.J.Super. 304, 316-17, 743 A.2d 341, 347 (Super.Ct.App.Div.) (holding attorney's reference to possibility of Indian ancestry during status conference insufficient to provide trial court with reason to believe children were Indian children when parties were provided with ample opportunity to pursue the issue but did not), cert. denied, 165 N.J. 492, 758 A.2d 651 (2000); In re A.L., 2001 ND 59, ¶ 12, 623 N.W.2d 418, 422 (holding that when mother offered no evidence to suggest the children were Indian children, but relied upon her counsel's statements, trial court had no reason to believe children were Indian chil

  3. In re Adoption of C.D

    2008 N.D. 128 (N.D. 2008)   Cited 20 times
    Holding that while the tribe has the authority to determine its own membership, a state court could make the legal determination whether the child meets the definition under federal ICWA

    An assertion that a child or parent "is of Indian `heritage' or `blood' provides no evidence that any of the children are Indian children under the ICWA." In re R.M.W., 188 S.W.3d 831, 833 (Tex.App. 2006). [¶ 26] ICWA's requirement of current tribal membership of at least one party to the proceedings is an outgrowth of the limits on Congressional authority in Indian legislation. Congressional authority to legislate extends only to tribal Indians, and creates a political, rather than a racial, preference.