John Paul Stevens

Name: Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians v. Holyfield — Dissenting Opinion
Author: John Paul Stevens

Summary

“Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians v. Holyfield — Dissenting Opinion”, is a work by John Paul Stevens. It explores elements such as reservation, Indian and parents.

Quotes from Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians v… (John Paul Stevens)

John Paul Stevens, Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians v…

“ Domicile is a legal concept that does not depend exclusively on one's physical location at any one given moment in time, rather it is based on the apparent intention of permanent residency. Many Indian families move back and forth from a reservation dwelling to border communities or even to distant communities, depending on employment and educational opportunities. . . . In these situations, where family ties to the reservation are strong, but the child is temporarily off the reservation, a fairly strong legal argument can be made for tribal court jurisdiction. ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

John Paul Stevens, Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians v…

“ The Act provides that any party seeking to effect a foster care placement of, or involuntary termination of parental rights to, an Indian child must establish by stringent standards of proof that efforts have been made to prevent the breakup of the Indian family, and that the continued custody of the child by the parent is likely to result in serious emotional or physical damage to the child. ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

John Paul Stevens, Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians v…

“ Although parents of Indian children are shielded from the exercise of state jurisdiction when they are temporarily off the reservation, the Act also reflects a recognition that allowing the tribe to defeat the parents' deliberate choice of jurisdiction would be conducive neither to the best interests of the child nor to the stability and security of Indian tribes and families. ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

John Paul Stevens, Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians v…

“ As the Tribe acknowledged at oral argument, any adoption of an Indian child effected through a state court will be susceptible of challenge by the Indian tribe no matter how old the child and how long it has lived with its adoptive parents. ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

John Paul Stevens, Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians v…

“ The interpretation of domicile adopted by the Court requires the custodian o an Indian child who is off the reservation to haul the child to a potentially distant tribal court unfamiliar with the child's present living conditions and best interests. Moreover, it renders any custody decision made by a state court forever suspect, susceptible to challenge at any time as void for having been entered in the absence of jurisdiction. [12] Finally, it forces parents of Indian children who desire to invoke state-court jurisdiction to establish a domicile off the reservation. ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

John Paul Stevens, Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians v…

“ By holding that parents who are domiciled on the reservation cannot voluntarily avail themselves of the adoption procedures of state court and that all such proceedings will be void for lack of jurisdiction, however, the Court establishes a rule of law that is virtually certain to ensure that similar anguish will be suffered by other families in the future. ”

[↩︎]

Source: Wikisource

John Paul Stevens, Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians v…

“ An abandonment occurs when a parent deserts a child and places the child with another with an intent to relinquish all parental rights and obligations. Restatement (Second) of Conflict of Laws § 22, Comment e (1971) (hereinafter Restatement) ; In re Adoption of Halloway, 732 P.2d 962, 966 (Utah 1986) . ”

John Paul Stevens

Summary

Quotes from Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians v… (John Paul Stevens)

Common terms

Similar works

Get perspective with Kwize: daily news enlightened by great literature