Here are the materials in State of Alaska v. Central Council of Haida and Tlingit Indian Tribes of Alaska:
Lower court materials here.
Alaska Supreme Court
NARF Press Release on Parks v. Simmonds
Here:
Friday, July 18, 2014
Alaska Supreme Court affirms full faith and credit to tribal court orders in Simmonds v. Parks decision
This morning, the Alaska Supreme Court issued its opinion in Simmonds v. Parks. The Court ruled the Minto Tribal Court’s order terminating Mr. Parks’ parental rights was entitled to full faith and credit and remanded the matter back to the superior court to be dismissed. Today’s decision ends the long-running case and reaffirms the respect owed to tribal courts when deciding issues that concern tribal children.
Background:
In June 2008, the Minto Tribal Court took emergency custody of an infant girl. After numerous hearings in which the parents participated, the Minto Tribal Court terminated the parental rights of the girl’s mother and father, Mr. Parks, and granted permanent custody of the child to the Simmonds who are relatives of the child’s mother. Mr. Parks did not appeal the decision in the Minto Tribal Court, but instead filed a series of lawsuits in federal and state court claiming, among other things, that the tribal court has no jurisdiction over him and that the Minto Tribal Court’s traditional practices and procedures violated his right to due process. Based on these arguments, Mr. Parks claimed that the tribal court termination order was not entitled to full faith and credit under the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA). The Simmonds argued that the termination order is entitled to full faith and credit, and they moved to dismiss the state court action, but this motion was denied by the superior court in November 2010.
The Simmonds petitioned the Alaska Supreme Court for review. The petition was granted, and the case was remanded to the superior court for it to make specific factual findings and legal conclusions. The superior court issued findings and concluded in part that tribal courts may not have jurisdiction over nonmembers and also suggested that the Minto Tribal Court’s traditional practices and procedures violated Mr. Parks’s right to due process. The Simmonds filed another petition for review with the Alaska Supreme Court asking that numerous aspects of this decision be reversed.
The State of Alaska intervened in the case and argued vigorously against the Minto Tribal Court’s jurisdiction and the use of the Tribal Court’s traditional law and processes. Attorney General Geraghty himself published an opinion piece on the case. These actions are consistent with the State’s 2004 Renkes Opinion and subsequent lawsuits in which the State has refused to recognize the authority of tribal courts over member children, including State v. Native Village of Tanana, Kaltag Tribal Council v. Jackson, and the ongoing State v. Central Council of Tlingit & Haida Indian Tribes of Alaska.
The Alaska Supreme Court’s Decision:
In its opinion today, the Alaska Supreme Court affirmed that the Minto Tribal Court’s decision is entitled to full faith and credit by Alaska courts. The Court affirmed that the Minto Tribal Court’s judgment on the custody of the child implicates interests that are at the core of tribal sovereignty and self-determination, and the Court rejected the State’s jurisdictional arguments to the contrary. In addition, the Court’s opinion is notable because it adopts the longstanding exhaustion of tribal remedies doctrine, which requires litigants to make use of tribal appellate courts before challenging tribal court decisions in federal or state courts.
NARF Staff Attorney Erin Dougherty described the Court’s analysis of full faith and credit and the tribal exhaustion doctrine as “a direct rebuke of the State of Alaska’s arguments, which sought to treat the decisions of tribal courts differently simply because they are Tribes. These arguments have no foundation in federal law and do a great disservice to the relationships between Tribes and the State of Alaska.” NARF Staff Attorney Natalie Landreth agreed, noting that “the Court’s decision today is entirely consistent with federal and state law.”
In this case, the Native Village of Minto did what it and the 228 other Tribes in Alaska have done since time immemorial—protect and care for their member children in times of need. The Native American Rights Fund calls on Governor Sean Parnell and Attorney General Geraghty to cease the State’s repeated efforts to oppose tribal courts and instead, work with Tribes to better protect all of Alaska’s children.
Alaska SCT Rules that State Courts Must Give Full Faith and Credit to Tribal Courts in ICWA Cases
Here is the opinion in Simmonds v. Parks.
We posted briefs here.
Alaska Supreme Court considers whether Adoptive Couple v. Baby Girl applies to State-initiated child protection proceedings
In June 2013, the Alaska Supreme Court held in Native Village of Tununak v. Dep’t of Health & Soc. Servs (Tununak I) that ICWA implicitly mandates that good cause to deviate from ICWA’s adoptive placement preferences must be proven by clear and convincing evidence, rather than a mere preponderance of the evidence. That opinion is here.
Four days later, the Supreme Court issued its ruling in Adoptive Couple v. Baby Girl. The adoptive parents in Tununak I asked the Alaska Supreme Court to revise its ruling in light of it, based on their argument that ICWA’s placement preferences do not apply in cases where no other party has formally sought to adopt the child. This argument would extend the Baby Girl decision beyond the realm of voluntary private adoptions like the one at issue in Baby Girl and apply it to state-initiated child protection proceedings involving the removal of a Native child from her custodial parent by state authorities.
The parties and the Native Village of Kotzebue, acting as amicus curiae, filed the following supplemental briefs on the issue in November 2013:
Appellee State of Alaska’s is here: Tununak – Supplemental Brief of Appellee State of Alaska
Appellees H.S. and K.S.’s (the adoptive couple) is here: Tununak – Supplemental Brief of Appellees H.S. and K.S. – adoptive couple
Appellant Village of Tununak’s is here: Tununak – Appellant Village of Tununak’s Supplemental Brief
Amicus Curiae Native Village of Kotzebue’s, prepared by NARF, is here: Tununak – Brief of Amicus Curiae Native Village of Kotzebue
Oral argument before the Alaska Supreme Court was held on January 14, 2014, and can be viewed here.
Alaska SCT Holds State Courts Cannot Adjudicate Restricted Alaska Native Townsite Titles
Here is the opinion in Hawkins v. Attatayuk.
An excerpt:
Harold Hawkins and Rosalind Attatayuk married and lived together in St. Michael until 1981, when they dissolved their marriage. Hawkins was awarded the couple’s home in the dissolution and continued to reside on the property, which was federally owned. In 1993 Attatayuk applied for and received a restricted townsite deed to the land by allegedly fraudulent means. She brought a trespass action against Hawkins, alleging that she had undisputed title to the land. Hawkins denied this allegation. The superior court ruled on summary judgment that Attatayuk’s restricted townsite deed gave her title to the land. Because Alaska state courts do not have subject matter jurisdiction to adjudicate title or right to possession of restricted townsite property, the only issue presented in this appeal is whether the superior court adjudicated title to the land in question. We hold that the superior court did adjudicate title and, as a result, exceeded its jurisdiction.
Alaska SCT Decides Alaska Native Corporation Shareholder Dispute
Here is the opinion in Rude v. Cook Inlet Region Inc.
An excerpt:
Robert Rude and Harold Rudolph are shareholders and former directors of Cook Inlet Region, Inc. (CIRI). They distributed a joint proxy solicitation in an attempt to be elected to the CIRI board of directors at CIRI’s 2010 annual meeting. Rude and Rudolph accumulated over one quarter of the total outstanding votes, but CIRI’s Inspector of Election refused to allow them to cumulate their votes. Thus, their votes were split evenly between the two of them and neither was seated. We conclude that the language of this proxy form required the shareholders’ votes to be equally distributed between Rude and Rudolph unless a shareholder indicated otherwise. We therefore affirm the superior court’s decision granting summary judgment in favor of CIRI on this issue.
Briefs in Alaska ICWA/Tribal Jurisdiction Case — Simmonds v. Parks
Alaska Supreme Court Decides ICWA Active Efforts Appeal
Here is the opinion in Philip J. v. State of Alaska.
Alaska SCT Decision on ICWA Placement Preferences
Here is the opinion.
An excerpt:
This appeal requires us to reexamine policies that underlie ICWA. Though we have previously held that the preponderance of the evidence standard set forth in Adoption Rule 11 applies, upon closer review we conclude that ICWA implicitly mandates that good cause to deviate from ICWA’s adoptive placement preferences be proved by clear and convincing evidence. To the extent our prior cases hold otherwise, they are overruled. We therefore vacate the superior court’s decision and remand for further proceedings in which the superior court shall apply the clear and convincing standard of proof to the good cause determination. We do not reach all the issues raised on appeal because we are remanding, but we address some of the tribe’s arguments regarding the good cause determination to provide guidance to the superior court and the parties on remand. We also clarify the analysis necessary when a party challenges the suitability of a preferred placement.
Alaska SCT Affirms Local Taxation of Alaska Native’s Home Built/Financed with BIA Funds
Here is the opinion in Williams v. Ketchikan Gateway Borough.
An excerpt:
Fredrick Williams appeals the superior court’s decision affirming the Ketchikan Gateway Borough’s ruling that the house at 511 Stedman Street is not exempt from Ketchikan Gateway Borough taxation. In March 2002 Williams received a grant to rebuild his house from the Bureau of Indian Affairs Housing Improvement Program. Under the grant, Williams would have been required to repay the full amount of the grant if he had transferred the house within ten years of ownership. Because Williams has owned the home for ten years, the repayment amount will annually decrease by ten percent of the original amount, resulting in no repayment for a transfer occurring 20 years or more after Williams received the grant. Williams executed a deed of trust securing the federal government’s right to repayment under the grant with the Stedman Street property. Williams claims that under the grant and the deed of trust, “[t]he federal government owns … the $115,000 it took to build the home,” and that Williams was therefore exempt from paying property taxes on it. On appeal, the superior court heard this argument and rejected it, upholding the Ketchikan Gateway Borough’s view that the deed of trust securing the grant did not divest Williams, the record owner, of the ownership interest in his real property. Because we agree with the superior court that substantial evidence supports the Ketchikan Gateway Borough’s factual determinations and that the Borough’s decision was correct as a matter of law, we AFFIRM the superior court and adopt its decision, which is attached as an appendix.
Turtle Talk 
You must be logged in to post a comment.