Arizona Court of Appeals

Duwyenie v. Moran — Arizona COA Case Involving Parallel Tribal and State Custody Actions

Matthew L.M. Fletcher1 Comment

Unusual case, involving what likely was the kidnapping of an Indian child in a child custody squabble originating in Arizona. One parent removed the child to South Dakota and initiated proceedings in the Rosebud Sioux Tribal Court after Arizona state court proceedings had begun. The other parent initiated tribal court proceedings on the same matter in Gila River Tribal Court, which was a smart move, since the tribal courts talked to each other, leading the RSTC to dismiss its part of the case and admonish the parent who (likely) kidnapped the child.

Here is the opinion.

Havasupai Tribe v. Arizona Board of Regents Materials

Matthew L.M. Fletcher2 Comments

Here, again, is the opinion. And here are the available materials:

tilousi-opening-brief

joint-answering-brief

tilousi-reply-brief

arizona-trial-lawyers-assn-amicus-brief

Havasupai Convince Arizona Court of Appeals to Reverse Dismissal of Informed Consent Claim

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here is the opinion, courtesy of Indianz, in Havasupai Tribe v. Arizona Board of Regents.

Beltran v. Harrah’s Arizona Corp. — Tort Claim Against Casino

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

The Arizona Court of Appeals, Division 2, affirmed the dismissal of a tort complaint against the management company for the Ak-Chin Indian Community. The plaintiffs had filed a tribal court claim that had been dismissed for procedural reasons (failure to identify the proper party).

Opinion

beltran-v-harrahs-appellee-brief

[appellant’s briefs unavailable]

Arizona COA on Burden of Proof in Parental Termination under ICWA

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

The Arizona Court of Appeals followed other state courts in applying the “dual burden of proof requirement” under ICWA in Valerie M. v. Arizona Dept. of Econ. Security.

From the opinion:

Contrary to Mother’s claims, the Act does not establish, or even mention, the appropriate standard of proof to be applied in evaluating state-law termination grounds or making state-mandated best interests determinations. Rather, § 1912(f) protects the stability and integrity of Indian families by requiring that the fact-finder make an additional finding beyond a reasonable doubt before the rights of any parent or custodian of an Indian child may be terminated. See 25 U.S.C. § 1902 (declaring “that it is the policy of this Nation to protect the best interests of Indian children and to promote the stability and security of Indian tribes and families by the establishment of minimum Federal standards for the removal of Indian children from their families”). We conclude, therefore, that § 1912(f)’s reasonable-doubt standard does not preempt the state-imposed burdens of proof for establishing termination grounds and best interests findings. See Maricopa County Juv. Action No. JS-8287, 171 Ariz. 104, 112, 828 P.2d 1245, 1253 (App.1992) (stating that § 1912(f) imposes requirements “in addition to meeting the Arizona requirement that parental rights may only be terminated for a number of stated reasons”).