Applicability and Verification

B.1 Regulation

23.2 - Indian child means any unmarried person who is under age 18 and either:

(1) Is a member or citizen of an Indian Tribe; or

(2) Is eligible for membership or citizenship in an Indian Tribe and is the biological child of a member/citizen of an Indian Tribe.

23.107 - How should a State court determine if there is reason to know the child is an Indian child?

(a) State courts must ask each participant in an emergency or voluntary or involuntary child-custody proceeding whether the participant knows or has reason to know that the child is an Indian child. The inquiry is made at the commencement of the proceeding and all responses should be on the record. State courts must instruct the parties to inform the court if they subsequently receive information that provides reason to know the child is an Indian child.

(b) If there is reason to know the child is an Indian child, but the court does not have sufficient evidence to determine that the child is or is not an “Indian child,” the court must:

(1) Confirm, by way of a report, declaration, or testimony included in the record that the agency or other party used due diligence to identify and work with all of the Tribes of which there is reason to know the child may be a member (or eligible for membership), to verify whether the child is in fact a member (or a biological parent is a member and the child is eligible for membership); and
(2) Treat the child as an Indian child, unless and until it is determined on the record that the child does not meet the definition of an “Indian child” in this part.

(c) A court, upon conducting the inquiry required in paragraph (a) of this section, has reason to know that a child involved in an emergency or child-custody proceeding is an Indian child if:

(1) Any participant in the proceeding, officer of the court involved in the proceeding, Indian Tribe, Indian organization, or agency informs the court that the child is an Indian child; 
(2) Any participant in the proceeding, officer of the court involved in the proceeding, Indian Tribe, Indian organization, or agency informs the court that it has discovered information indicating that the child is an Indian child;
(3) The child who is the subject of the proceeding gives the court reason to know he or she is an Indian child;
(4) The court is informed that the domicile or residence of the child, the child’s parent, or the child’s Indian custodian is on a reservation or in an Alaska Native village; 
(5) The court is informed that the child is or has been a ward of a Tribal court; or
(6) The court is informed that either parent or the child possesses an identification card indicating membership in an Indian Tribe.

(d) In seeking verification of the child’s status in a voluntary proceeding where a consenting parent evidences, by written request or statement in the record, a desire for anonymity, the court must keep relevant documents pertaining to the inquiry required under this section confidential and under seal. A request for anonymity does not relieve the court, agency, or other party from any duty of compliance with ICWA, including the obligation to verify whether the child is an “Indian child.” A Tribe receiving information related to this inquiry must keep documents and information confidential.

B.1 Guidelines

Definition of “Indian child”

The rule reflects the statutory definition of “Indian child,” which is based on the child’s political ties to a federally recognized Indian Tribe, either by virtue of the child’s own citizenship in the Tribe, or through a biological parent’s citizenship and the child’s eligibility for citizenship. ICWA does not apply simply based on a child or parent’s Indian ancestry. Instead, there must be a political relationship to the Tribe.

Most Tribes require that individuals apply for citizenship and demonstrate how they meet that Tribe’s membership criteria. Congress recognized that there may not have been an opportunity for an infant or minor child to become a citizen of a Tribe prior to the child-custody proceeding, and found that Congress had the power to act for those children’s protection given the political tie to the Tribe through parental citizenship and the child’s own eligibility.¹⁷

17 See, e.g., H.R. Rep. No. 95-1386, at 17. This is consistent with other contexts in which the citizenship of a parent is relevant to the child’s political affiliation to that sovereign. See, e.g., 8 U.S.C. 1401 (providing for U.S. citizenship for persons born outside of the United States when one or both parents are citizens and certain other conditions are met); id. 1431 (child born outside the United States automatically becomes a citizen when at least one parent of the child is a citizen of the United States and certain other conditions are met).

Inquiry

Even if a party fails to assert that ICWA may apply, the court has a duty to inquire as to ICWA’s applicability to the proceeding.

Timing of inquiry

The applicability of ICWA to a child-custody proceeding turns on the threshold question of whether the child in the case is an “Indian child.” It is, therefore, critically important that there be inquiry into that threshold issue by courts, State agencies, and participants to the proceedings as soon as possible. If this inquiry is not timely, a child-custody proceeding may not comply with ICWA and thus may deny ICWA protections to Indian children and their families or, at the very least, cause inefficiencies. The failure to timely determine if ICWA applies also can generate unnecessary delays, as the court and the parties may need to redo certain processes or findings under the correct standard. This is inefficient for courts and parties, and can create delays and instability in placements for the Indian child.

Subsequent discovery of information

Recognizing that facts change during the course of a child custody proceeding, courts must instruct the participants to inform the court if they subsequently learn information that provides “reason to know” the child is an “Indian child.” Thus, if the State agency subsequently discovers that the child is an Indian child, for example, or if a parent enrolls the child in an Indian Tribe, they will need to inform the court so that the proceeding can move forward in compliance with the requirements of ICWA.

Inquiry each proceeding

The rule does not require an inquiry at each hearing within a proceeding; but, if a new child-custody proceeding (such as a proceeding to terminate parental rights or for adoption) is initiated for the same child, the court must make a finding as to whether there is “reason to know” that the child is an Indian child. In situations in which the child was not identified as an Indian child in the prior proceeding, the court has a continuing duty to inquire whether the child is an Indian child.¹⁸

18 See, e.g., In re Isaiah W., 1 Cal.5th 1 (2016).

Reason to Know

If the court has “reason to know” that a child is a member of a Tribe, then certain obligations under the statute and regulations are triggered (specifically, the court must confirm that due diligence was used to: (1) identify the Tribe; (2) work with the Tribe to verify whether the child is a citizen or a biological parent is a citizen and the child is eligible for citizenship; and (3) treat the child as an Indian child, unless and until it is determined that the child is not an Indian child).

The regulation lists factors that indicate a “reason to know” the child is an “Indian child.” State courts and agencies are encouraged to interpret these factors expansively. When in doubt, it is better to conduct further investigation into a child’s status early in the case; this establishes which laws will apply to the case and minimizes the potential for delays or disrupted placements in the future. States or courts may choose to require additional investigation into whether there is a reason to know the child is an Indian child.

When one or more factors is present

If there is “reason to know” the child is an “Indian child,” the court needs to ensure that due diligence was used to identify and work with all of the Tribes of which there is a reason to know the child may be a member or eligible for membership, to verify whether the child is in fact a member (or a biological parent is a member and the child is eligible for membership). In order to provide the information that the court needs, the State agency or other party seeking placement should ask the child, parents, and potentially extended family which Tribe(s) they have an affiliation with and obtain genealogical information from the family, and contact the Tribe(s) with that information.

When none of the factors is present

If there is no “reason to know” the child is an “Indian child,” the State agency (or other party seeking placement) should document the basis for this conclusion in the case file.

Verification or documentation of a factor

The rule provides that the court has a “reason to know” the child is an “Indian child” if it is informed that either parent or the child possesses an identification card indicating membership in an Indian Tribe. This provision reflects that there may already be sufficient documentation available to demonstrate that the Tribe has concluded that a parent or child is a citizen of the Tribe. However, for the court’s determination as to whether the child is an Indian child, the best source is a contemporaneous communication from the Tribe.

Due Diligence to Work with Tribes to Verify

The determination of whether a child is an “Indian child” turns on Tribal citizenship or eligibility for citizenship. The rule recognizes that these determinations are ones that Tribes make in their sovereign capacity and requires courts to defer to those determinations. The best source for a court to use to conclude that a child or parent is a citizen of a Tribe (or that a child is eligible for citizenship)¹⁹ is a contemporaneous communication from the Tribe documenting the determination.

See section B.7 of these guidelines for more information on verification and when a State court determination is appropriate.

19 These guidelines use the terms “member” and “citizen” interchangeably.

Treating the Child as an Indian Child, Unless and Until Determined Otherwise 

This requirement (triggered by a “reason to know” the child is an “Indian child”) ensures that ICWA’s requirements are followed from the early stages of a case and that harmful delays and duplication resulting from the potential late application of ICWA are avoided. For example, it makes sense to place a child that the court has reason to know is an Indian child in a placement that complies with ICWA’s placement preferences from the start of a proceeding, rather than having to consider a change a placement later in the proceeding once the court confirms that the child actually is an Indian child. Notably, the early application of ICWA’s requirements—which are designed to keep children, when possible, with their parents, family, or Tribal community—should benefit children regardless of whether it turns out that they are Indian children as defined by the statute. If, based on feedback from the relevant Tribe(s) or other information, the court determines that the child is not an “Indian child,” then the State may proceed under its usual standards.

B.2 Regulation

23.103 - When does ICWA apply?

(a) ICWA includes requirements that apply whenever an Indian child is the subject of:

(1) A child-custody proceeding, including:

(i) An involuntary proceeding;

(ii) A voluntary proceeding that could prohibit the parent or Indian custodian from regaining custody of the child upon demand; and

(iii) A proceeding involving status offenses if any part of the proceeding results in the need for out-of-home placement of the child, including a foster-care, preadoptive, or adoptive placement, or termination of parental rights. (2) An emergency proceeding.

(b) ICWA does not apply to:

(1) A Tribal court proceeding;

(2) A proceeding regarding a criminal act that is not a status offense;

(3) An award of custody of the Indian child to one of the parents including, but not limited to, an award in a divorce proceeding; or

(4) A voluntary placement that either parent, both parents, or the Indian custodian has, of his or her or their free will, without a threat of removal by a State agency, chosen for the Indian child and that does not operate to prohibit the child’s parent or Indian custodian from regaining custody of the child upon demand.

(c) If a proceeding listed in paragraph (a) of this section concerns a child who meets the statutory definition of “Indian child,” then ICWA will apply to that proceeding. In determining whether ICWA applies to a proceeding, the State court may not consider factors such as the participation of the parents or the Indian child in Tribal cultural, social, religious, or political activities, the relationship between the Indian child and his or her parents, whether the parent ever had custody of the child, or the Indian child’s blood quantum.

(d) If ICWA applies at the commencement of a proceeding, it will not cease to apply simply because the child reaches age 18 during the pendency of the proceeding.

B.2 Guidelines

ICWA has provisions that apply to “child-custody proceedings.” See the definition of “child-custody proceeding” and associated guidelines in section L of these guidelines. Child-custody proceedings include both involuntary proceedings and voluntary proceedings involving an “Indian child,” regardless of whether individual members of the family are themselves Indian. Thus, for example, a non-Indian parent may avail himself or herself of protections provided to parents by ICWA if her child is an “Indian child.”

Involuntary Proceedings

If the child may be involuntarily removed from the parents or Indian custodian or the child may be involuntarily placed, then ICWA applies to the proceeding. If the parent or Indian custodian does not agree to the removal or placement, or agrees only under threat of the child’s removal, then the proceeding is involuntary.

Voluntary Proceedings

If the parents or Indian custodian voluntarily agrees to removal or placement of the Indian child, then certain provisions of ICWA still apply. Voluntary proceedings require a determination of whether the child is an Indian child and compliance with ICWA and the regulation’s provisions relating to the placement preferences. See section B.3 of these guidelines for a list of which regulatory provisions apply to each type of proceeding.

A proceeding is voluntary only if the parent or Indian custodian voluntarily agrees to placement, of his or her own free will, without threat of removal.

Voluntary Placements Where Custody of the Child Can Be Regained “Upon Demand”

If the parent or Indian custodian has voluntarily placed the child (upon his or her own free will without threat of removal) and can regain custody “upon demand,” meaning without any formalities or contingencies, then ICWA does not apply. These excepted voluntary placements are typically done without the assistance of a child welfare agency. An example is where a parent arranges for a relative or neighbor to care for their child while they are out of town for a period of time. If a child welfare agency is involved, it is recommended that placement intended to last for an extended period of time be memorialized in written agreements that explicitly state the right of the parent or Indian custodian to regain custody of the child upon demand without any formalities or contingencies.

The distinction between a voluntary and involuntary placement can be nuanced and depends on the facts. For example:

• If parent wishes to enter a drug treatment and places the child while in treatment, but can get the child back upon demand even if treatment is not completed, then that is likely a voluntary placement.
• If parent is told they will lose the child unless they enter a drug treatment program during which child is placed elsewhere, that is not a voluntary placement.
• If a parent wishes to enter drug treatment and places the child while in treatment, and is told that they can only get child back if treatment is successfully completed, that is not a voluntary placement.

Placements Resulting from a Child’s Status Offense

ICWA also applies to placements resulting from a child’s status offense. Status offenses are offenses that would not be considered criminal if committed by an adult, and are prohibited only because of a person’s status as a minor (such as truancy or incorrigibility). If the child is being removed because he or she committed a status offense, then ICWA applies.

Guardianships/Conservatorships

ICWA also applies to placements with a guardian or conservator, because ICWA includes guardianships in the definition of “foster care placement.” Intra-Family Custody Disputes The statute and rule exclude custody disputes between parents, but can apply to other types of intrafamily disputes—including disputes with grandparents, step-parents, or other family members—assuming that such disputes otherwise meet the statutory and regulatory definitions.

Placement with Parent

Placement with a parent is generally not an “Indian child-custody proceeding” because it is not included as a “foster-care placement.” While the Act specifically exempts from ICWA’s applicability awards of custody to one of the parents “in divorce proceedings,” the exemption necessarily includes awards of custody to one of the parents in other types of proceedings as well. However, if a proceeding seeks to terminate the parental rights of one parent, that proceeding falls within ICWA’s definition of “child-custody proceeding” even if the child will remain in the custody of the other parent or a step-parent.

Factors that May Not Be Considered

If a child-custody proceeding concerns a child who meets the statutory definition of “Indian child,” then the court may not determine that ICWA does not apply based on factors such as the participation of the parents or the Indian child in Tribal cultural, social, religious, or political activities, the relationship between the Indian child and his or her parents, whether the parent ever had custody of the child, or the Indian child’s blood quantum (sometimes known as the “Existing Indian Family” exception). These factors are not relevant to the inquiry of whether the statute applies. Rather, ICWA applies whenever an “Indian child” is the subject of a “child-custody proceeding,” as those terms are defined in the statute. In addition, Congress expressly recognized that State courts and agencies often failed to recognize the essential Tribal relations of Indian people and the cultural and social standards prevailing in Indian communities and families. A standard that requires the evaluation of the strength of these social or cultural ties frustrates ICWA’s purpose to provide more objective standards for Indian child-custody proceedings.²⁰

Application Even if Child Reaches Age 18

Where State and/or Federal law provides for a child-custody proceeding to extend beyond an Indian child’s 18th birthday, ICWA would not stop applying to the proceeding simply because of the child’s age. This is to ensure that a set of laws apply consistently throughout a proceeding, and also to discourage strategic behavior or delays in ICWA compliance in circumstances where a child’s 18th birthday is near.

B.3 Regulation

23.104 - What [rule] provisions…apply to each type of child-custody proceeding?

The following table lists what sections of this subpart apply to each type of child-custody proceeding identified in 23.103(a):

B.3 Guidelines

As discussed above, ICWA has provisions that apply to both involuntary proceedings and voluntary proceedings involving an “Indian child,” regardless of whether individual members of the family are themselves Indian. ICWA also includes a separate category for “emergency” proceedings, which are described in section C of these guidelines, below.

This chart is intended as a quick-reference tool to provide an overview of what regulatory provisions apply to what types of proceedings. For specifics on how each regulatory provision applies, please refer directly to the regulatory provision and appropriate section of these guidelines.

 

B.4 Guidelines

Sometimes, the child or parent may not be certain of their citizenship status in an Indian Tribe, but may indicate they are somehow affiliated with a Tribe or group of Tribes. In these circumstances, State agencies and courts should ask the parent and, potentially, extended family what Tribe or Tribal ancestral group the parent may be affiliated with.

If a specific Tribe is indicated, determine if that Tribe is listed as a federally recognized Indian Tribe on the BIA’s annual list, viewable at www.bia.gov. Some Tribes are recognized by States but not recognized by the Federal Government. The Federal ICWA applies only if the Tribe is a federally recognized Indian Tribe and therefore listed on the BIA list.

If only the Tribal ancestral group (e.g., Cherokee) is indicated, then we recommend State agencies or courts contact each of the Tribes in that ancestral group (see section B.6 of these guidelines regarding the published list of ICWA designated agents) to identify whether the parent or child is a member of any such Tribe. If the State agency or court is unsure that it has contacted all the relevant Tribes, or needs other assistance in identifying the appropriate Tribes, it should contact the BIA Regional Office. Ideally, State agencies or courts should contact the BIA Regional Office for the region in which the Tribe is located, but if the State agency or court is not aware of the appropriate BIA Regional Office, it may contact any BIA Regional Office for direction.

B.5 Regulation

23.109 - How should a State court determine an Indian child’s Tribe when the child may be a member or eligible for membership in more than one Tribe?

(a) If the Indian child is a member or eligible for membership in only one Tribe, that Tribe must be designated as the Indian child’s Tribe.

(b) If the Indian child meets the definition of “Indian child” through more than one Tribe, deference should be given to the Tribe in which the Indian child is already a member, unless otherwise agreed to by the Tribes.

(c) If an Indian child meets the definition of “Indian child” through more than one Tribe because the child is a member in more than one Tribe or the child is not a member of but is eligible for membership in more than one Tribe, the court must provide the opportunity in any involuntary child-custody proceeding for the Tribes to determine which should be designated as the Indian child’s Tribe.

(1) If the Tribes are able to reach an agreement, the agreed-upon Tribe should be designated as the Indian child’s Tribe.

(2) If the Tribes are unable to reach an agreement, the State court designates, for the purposes of ICWA, the Indian Tribe with which the Indian child has the more significant contacts as the Indian child’s Tribe, taking into consideration:

(i) Preference of the parents for membership of the child;
(ii) Length of past domicile or residence on or near the reservation of each Tribe; 
(iii) Tribal membership of the child’s custodial parent or Indian custodian; and 
(iv) Interest asserted by each Tribe in the child-custody proceeding; 
(v) Whether there has been a previous adjudication with respect to the child by a court of one of the Tribes; and 
(vi) Self-identification by the child, if the child is of sufficient age and capacity to meaningfully self-identify.

(3) A determination of the Indian child’s Tribe for purposes of ICWA and the regulations in this subpart do not constitute a determination for any other purpose.

B.5 Guidelines

If a child meets the definition of “Indian child” through more than one Tribe, it is a best practice to communicate with both (or all) of the Tribes regarding any upcoming actions regarding the child. The Tribes must be informed that the child may be a member or eligible for membership in multiple Tribes, and must be given reasonable opportunity to agree on which Tribe will be designated as the Indian child’s Tribe for the purposes of the child-custody proceeding. If the Tribes are unable to reach an agreement, the State court will designate a Tribe, after considering the factors identified in the regulation. It is a best practice to conduct a hearing regarding designation of the Indian child’s Tribe so that the court can gather the information about the factors identified in the regulation.

B.6 Regulation

23.105 - How do I contact a Tribe under the regulations in this subpart?

To contact a Tribe to provide notice or obtain information or verification under the regulations in this subpart, you should direct the notice or inquiry as follows:

(a) Many Tribes designate an agent for receipt of ICWA notices. The BIA publishes a list of Tribes’ designated Tribal agents for service of ICWA notice in the Federal Register each year and makes the list available on its website at www.bia.gov.

(b) For a Tribe without a designated Tribal agent for service of ICWA notice, contact the Tribe to be directed to the appropriate office or individual.

(c) If you do not have accurate contact information for a Tribe, or the Tribe contacted fails to respond to written inquiries, you should seek assistance in contacting the Indian Tribe from the BIA local or regional office or the BIA’s Central Office in Washington, D.C. (see www.bia.gov).

B.6 Guidelines

Although the regulation focuses on written contact, it is recommended that, in addition, State agencies contact, by telephone and/or email, the Tribal ICWA agent, as listed in BIA’s most recent list of designated Tribal agents for service of ICWA notice (available on www.bia.gov and published annually in the Federal Register). This facilitates open communication and enables the State and Tribal social workers to coordinate on services that may be available to support the family. State agencies should document their conversations with Tribal agents. If, for some reason, the State agency cannot reach the Tribal agent listed in the most recent list on www.bia.gov or in the Federal Register, we recommend contacting the BIA.

B.7 Regulation

23.108 - Who makes the determination as to whether a child is a member, whether a child is eligible for membership, or whether a biological parent is a member of a Tribe?

(a) The Indian Tribe of which it is believed the child is a member (or eligible for membership and of which the biological parent is a member) determines whether the child is a member of the Tribe, or whether the child is eligible for membership in the Tribe and a biological parent of the child is a member of the Tribe, except as otherwise provided by Federal or Tribal law.

(b) The determination by a Tribe of whether a child is a member, whether a child is eligible for membership, or whether a biological parent is a member, is solely within the jurisdiction and authority of the Tribe, except as otherwise provided by Federal or Tribal law. The State court may not substitute its own determination regarding a child’s membership in a Tribe, a child’s eligibility for membership in a Tribe, or a parent’s membership in a Tribe.

(c) The State court may rely on facts or documentation indicating a Tribal determination of membership or eligibility for membership in making a judicial determination as to whether the child is an “Indian child.” An example of documentation indicating membership is a document issued by the Tribe, such as Tribal enrollment documentation.

See, also, 23.107(b)(1) in section B.1 of these guidelines, above.

B.7 Guidelines

Tribes, as sovereign governments, have the exclusive authority to determine their political citizenship and their eligibility requirements. A Tribe is, therefore, the authoritative and best source of information regarding who is a citizen (or member) of that Tribe and who is eligible for citizenship of that Tribe. Thus, the rule defers to Tribes in making such determinations and makes clear that a court may not substitute its own determination for that of a Tribe regarding a child’s citizenship or eligibility for citizenship in a Tribe.

If the court has “reason to know” the child is an “Indian child” (see section B.1 of these guidelines, above), agencies must use due diligence to work with the relevant Tribe(s) to obtain verification regarding whether the child is a citizen or a biological parent is a citizen and the child is eligible for citizenship. The Department encourages agencies to contact Tribes informally, in addition to providing written notice, to seek such verification. The regulation requires that the agency’s efforts to identify and work with those Tribes be documented in the court record. It is a best practice for these efforts to be maintained in agency files as well.

Form of Verification

While written verification from the Tribe(s) is an appropriate method for such verification, other methods may be appropriate. A Tribal representative’s testimony at a hearing regarding whether the child is a citizen (or a biological parent is a citizen and the child is eligible for citizenship) is an appropriate method of verification by the Tribe.

Information in Request for Tribe’s Verification

The Department encourages State courts and agencies to include enough information in the requests for verification to allow the Tribes to readily determine whether the child is a Tribal citizen (or whether the parent is a Tribal citizen and the child is eligible for citizenship). The request for verification is a meaningful request only if it provides sufficient information to the Tribe to make the determination as to whether the child is a citizen (or the parent is a citizen and the child is eligible for citizenship). Providing as much information as possible facilitates earlier identification of an Indian child and helps prevents delays and disruptions. Section 23.111(d) includes categories of information that must be provided in the notice to a Tribe in involuntary fostercare placement or TPR proceedings. Such information may be helpful to provide a Tribe to assist in verification of whether the child an Indian child. It is also important that names, birthdates, and other relevant information be reported accurately to the Tribe, as misspellings or other incorrect information can generate inaccurate or delayed responses.

A primary reason for courts mistakenly not being aware that a child is an Indian child is that the request for verification lacks the information necessary (or lacks accurate information) for the Tribe to make a determination as to membership or eligibility for membership. We therefore recommend parties include as much information as is available regarding the child in order to help the Tribe identify whether the child or the child’s parent is a member. If possible, include the following information:

• Genograms or ancestry/family charts for both parents;
• All known names of both parents (maiden, married and former names or aliases), including possible alternative spellings;
• Current and former addresses of the child’s parents and any extended family;
• Birthdates and places of birth (and death, if applicable) of both parents;
• All known Tribal affiliation (or Indian ancestry if Tribal affiliation not known) for individuals listed on the ancestry/family charts; and
• The addresses for the domicile and residence of the child, his or her parents, or the Indian custodian and whether this is on an Indian reservation or in an Alaska Native village.

Court’s Determination

While a Tribe is the authoritative and best source regarding Tribal citizenship information, the court must ultimately determine whether the child is an Indian child for purposes of the child-custody proceeding. Ideally, that determination would be based on information provided by the Tribe, but may need to be based on other information if, for example, the Tribe(s) fail(s) to respond to verification requests.

The Department encourages prompt responses by Tribes, but if a Tribe fails to respond to multiple requests for verification regarding whether a child is in fact a citizen (or a biological parent is a citizen and the child is eligible for citizenship), and the agency has sought the assistance of the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) in contacting the Tribe, a court may make a determination regarding whether the child is an Indian child for purposes of the child-custody proceeding based on the information it has available. A finding that a child is an “Indian child” applies only for the purposes of the application of ICWA to that proceeding, and does not establish that child’s membership in a Tribe or eligibility for any Federal programs or benefits for any other purpose. If new evidence later arises, the court will need to consider it and should alter the original determination if appropriate.

It is recommended the agency document the requests to the Tribe to obtain information or verification of a child’s or parent’s Tribal citizenship and provide this information for the court file.

BIA Assistance

BIA does not make determinations as to Tribal citizenship or eligibility for Tribal citizenships except as otherwise provided by Federal or Tribal Law, but BIA can help route the notice to the right place.

B.8 Guidelines

In many cases, Tribal citizenship would make more services and programs available to the child. Even where it is not clear that Tribal services and programs would assist the child, there are both immediate and long-term benefits to being a Tribal citizen. It is thus a recommended practice for the social worker (or party seeking placement in a voluntary adoption) to facilitate the child becoming a member, such as by assisting with the filing of a Tribal membership application or otherwise.