260.762 DUTY TO PREVENT OUT-OF-HOME CHILD PLACEMENT, PRESERVE THE CHILD’S FAMILY, AND PROMOTE FAMILY REUNIFICATION; ACTIVE EFFORTS.

§

Subdivision 1.Active efforts.

Active efforts includes acknowledging traditional helping and healing systems of an Indian child’s Tribe and using these systems as the core to help and heal the Indian child and family regardless of whether the Indian child’s Tribe has intervened in the proceedings. §

Subd. 2.

MS 2023 Supp [Repealed by amendment, 2024 c 115 art 17 s 19] §

Subd. 2a.Required findings that active efforts were provided.

(a) A court shall not order a child placement, termination of parental rights, guardianship to the commissioner of children, youth, and families under section 260C.325, or temporary or permanent change in custody of an Indian child unless the court finds that the child-placing agency or petitioner demonstrated that active efforts were made to preserve the Indian child’s family. Active efforts to preserve the Indian child’s family include efforts to prevent placement of the Indian child to correct the conditions that led to the placement by ensuring remedial services and rehabilitative programs designed to prevent the breakup of the family were provided in a manner consistent with the prevailing social and cultural conditions of the Indian child’s Tribe and in partnership with the Indian child, the Indian child’s parents, the Indian custodian, extended family members, and Tribe, and that these efforts have proved unsuccessful.

(b) The court, in determining whether active efforts were made to preserve the Indian child’s family for purposes of child placement or permanency, shall ensure the provision of active efforts designed to correct the conditions that led to the placement of the Indian child and shall make findings regarding whether the following activities were appropriate and necessary, and whether the child-placing agency or petitioner ensured appropriate and meaningful services were available based upon the family’s specific needs, whether listed in this paragraph or not:

(1) whether active efforts were made at the earliest point possible to inquire into the child’s heritage, to identify any federally recognized Indian Tribe the child may be affiliated with, to notify all potential Tribes at the earliest point possible, and to request participation of the Indian child’s Tribe;

(2) whether a Tribally designated representative with substantial knowledge of the prevailing social and cultural standards and child-rearing practices within the Tribal community was provided an opportunity to consult with and be involved in any investigations or assessments of the family’s circumstances, participate in identifying the family’s needs, and participate in development of any plan to keep the Indian child safely in the home, identify services designed to prevent the breakup of the Indian child’s family, and to reunify the Indian child’s family as soon as safety can be assured if out-of-home placement has occurred;

(3) whether the Tribal representative was provided with all information available regarding the proceeding, and whether it was requested that the Tribal representative assist in identifying services designed to prevent the breakup of the Indian child’s family and to reunify the Indian child’s family as soon as safety can be assured if out-of-home placement has occurred;

(4) whether, before making a decision that may affect an Indian child’s safety and well-being or when contemplating placement of an Indian child, guidance from the Indian child’s Tribe was sought regarding family structure, how the family can seek help, what family and Tribal resources are available, and what barriers the family faces that could threaten the family’s preservation;

(5) whether a Tribal representative was consulted to determine and arrange for visitation in the most natural setting that ensures the Indian child’s safety, when the Indian child’s safety requires supervised visitation;

(6) whether early and ongoing efforts occurred to identify, locate, and include extended family members as supports for the Indian child and the Indian child’s family;

(7) whether continued active efforts were made to identify and place the Indian child in a home that is compliant with the placement preferences in sections 260.751 to 260.835, including whether extended family members were consulted to provide support to the Indian child and Indian child’s parents; to inform the child-placing agency, petitioner, and court as to cultural connections and family structure; to assist in identifying appropriate cultural services and supports for the Indian child and Indian child’s parents; and to identify and serve as placement and permanency resources for the Indian child. If there was difficulty contacting or engaging extended family members, whether assistance was sought from the Tribe; the Department of Human Services; the Department of Children, Youth, and Families; or other agencies with expertise in working with Indian families;

(8) whether services and resources were provided to extended family members who are considered the primary placement option for an Indian child, as agreed upon by the child-placing agency or petitioner and the Tribe, to overcome licensing and other barriers to providing care to an Indian child. The need for services or resources shall not be a basis to exclude an extended family member from consideration as a primary placement. Services and resources include but are not limited to child care assistance, financial assistance, housing resources, emergency resources, and foster care licensing assistance and resources;

(9) whether concrete services and access to both Tribal and non-Tribal services were provided to the Indian child’s parents and Indian custodian and, where necessary, members of the Indian child’s extended family who provide support to the Indian child and the Indian child’s parents; and whether these services were provided in an ongoing manner throughout the child-placing agency or petitioner’s involvement with the Indian family to directly assist the Indian family in accessing and utilizing services to maintain the Indian family, or to reunify the Indian family as soon as safety can be assured if out-of-home placement has occurred. Services include but are not limited to financial assistance, food, housing, health care, transportation, in-home services, community support services, and specialized services; and

(10) whether visitation occurred whenever possible in the home of the Indian child’s parent, Indian custodian, or extended family member or in another noninstitutional setting in order to keep the Indian child in close contact with the Indian child’s parents, siblings, and other relatives regardless of the Indian child’s age and to allow the Indian child and those with whom the Indian child visits to have natural, unsupervised interaction when consistent with protecting the child’s safety. §

Subd. 2b.Adoptions.

For adoptions under chapter 259, the court may find that active efforts were made to prevent placement of an Indian child or to reunify the Indian child with the Indian child’s parents upon a finding that: (1) subdivision 2a, paragraph (b), clauses (1) to (4), were met; (2) the Indian child’s parent knowingly and voluntarily consented to placement of the Indian child for adoption on the record as described in section 260.765, subdivision 3a; (3) fraud was not present, and the Indian child’s parent was not under duress; (4) the Indian child’s parent was offered and declined services that would enable the Indian child’s parent to maintain custody of the Indian child; and (5) the Indian child’s parent was counseled on alternatives to adoption, and adoption contact agreements. §

Subd. 3.

MS 2023 Supp [Repealed by amendment, 2024 c 115 art 17 s 19]

History:

2015 c 78 art 1 s 21; 2023 c 16 s 18; 2024 c 80 art 8 s 70; 2024 c 115 art 12 s 5; art 17 s 19; 2025 c 20 s 216; 2025 c 21 s 61

History: History: 2015 c 78 art 1 s 21; 2023 c 16 s 18; 2024 c 80 art 8 s 70; 2024 c 115 art 12 s 5; art 17 s 19; 2025 c 20 s 216; 2025 c 21 s 61