Montana Supreme Court

Split Montana SCT Affirms Denial of Indian Child Welfare Matter’s Transfer to Blackfeet Tribe

Matthew L.M. Fletcher2 Comments

Here is the opinion and the various briefs in In the Matter of S.B.C.:

Appellant Brief — Blackfeet Tribe

Appellant Brief — Father

Appellant Brief — Mother

Appellee Brief — Response to Father

Appellee Brief — Response to Tribe

Appellee Brief — Response to Mother

Reply — Blackfeet Tribe

Reply Brief — Father

Reply Brief — Mother

Montana SCT Opinion

Excerpts:

N.B. (Birth Mother) and S.B.C. (Biological Father) appeal from the order entered by the Fourth Judicial District Court, Missoula County, terminating both parents’ rights to their minor child, S.B.C, Jr. (S.B.C), and granting the Department of Public Health and Human Services, Child and Family Services Division (Child Services) permanent legal custody with right to consent to adoption. The Birth Mother and Biological Father also challenge the District Court’s order denying transfer of jurisdiction to the Blackfeet Tribal Court. The Blackfeet Tribe (Tribe) has filed a cross-appeal likewise challenging the denial of its motion to transfer jurisdiction to the Blackfeet Tribal Court and the termination of Biological Father’s parental rights. We affirm.

And:

Lastly, the Tribe argues the District Court improperly considered the socio-economic conditions of the Tribal Court. Subsection (c) of the Guidelines prohibit the consideration of the “[s]ocio-economic conditions and the perceived adequacy” of the tribal court system in making a determination of good cause. 44 Fed.Reg. 67591. In an attempt to demonstrate that the court based its decision on the inadequacy of the Tribal Court system, the Tribe draws our attention to a number of assertions the District Court made in its findings of fact and conclusions of law. The District Court remarked throughout its findings of fact and conclusions of law that the Tribe “chose to sit on its hands and delay seeking jurisdiction over [S.B.C] for tribal financial reasons.” Further, the court insinuated that the Tribe believes its children are sacred “only when it is in its best financial interests to do so.”

From the dissent:

I disagree with the majority’s analysis of the “advanced stage” guideline. The State filed its termination petition on March 6, 2013. The Tribe, having intervened early in the case, moved to transfer jurisdiction on April 10, 2013, thirty-five days later. The District Court order faulted the Tribe for seeking transfer after “all the critical court proceedings [were] completed and decisions made,” yet the District Court had not conducted a hearing nor made a decision to terminate the parents’ rights. The hearing was not held until September 10, 2013, and the order of termination was not signed until January 15, 2014, eight months after the motion to transfer was filed. This situation does not implicate the dangers the “advanced stage” rule is designed to protect against and there is no indication of manipulation by any party.

And:

Finally, I agree with the majority that the District Court’s repeated statements that the Tribe “sat on its hands” until it had a financial reason to seek jurisdiction were inappropriate. The BIA Guidelines specifically provide that a state court cannot base the “good cause” determination on “socio-economic conditions and the perceived adequacy of tribal social services or judicial system.” 44 Fed.Reg. 67,591. These statements reflect, at best, a refusal to comply with the Guidelines and, at worst, a strong bias against the Tribe and the Tribal judicial system. Such statements have no place in the District Court’s order and were highly inappropriate.

Montana ICWA Case: Notice, Active Efforts and a Look at Adoptive Couple Citations

Kate Fort1 Comment

Here.

A footnote in the case,

The record does not clarify whether G.S. ever had custody of M.S. The record is silent regarding G.S.’s relationship with M.S. prior to his incarceration. We recognize that 25 U.S.C. 1912(d) does not apply where the “breakup of the Indian family” has long since occurred. In re J.S., 2014 MT 79, P29, 374 Mont. 329, 321 P.3d 103 (citing Adoptive Couple v. Baby Girl, 570 U.S. __, 133 S.Ct. 2552, 2559 (2013)). Although the District Court asked during the April 22, 2013 hearing, before Baby Girl was decided, how the ICWA standard for termination applies in a situation where the child was never in the parent’s custody, the parties did not dispute that ICWA’s active efforts were required. Because this potential issue was not raised, we will not address it in this appeal.

got me looking for other cases that have cited Adoptive Couple. According to Westlaw, that would be 19 cases, including this one. Striking four of them as not child welfare cases, all 15 remaining were involuntary proceedings. Five from California, two from Montana, and one in Alaska, Nebraska, Oklahoma, North Carolina, North Dakota, Minnesota, Michigan, and Virginia.  Three cases “distinguished” Adoptive Couple, though that included the Alexandria P. case, so distinguishing Adoptive Couple doesn’t necessarily mean the court followed ICWA. Seven of the cases only cited the case (including this one).

Those that used the Adoptive Couple reasoning (instead of citing the case for fairly standard ICWA language)  include:

Native Villiage of Tununak v. State (holding that the adoption preferences of ICWA didn’t apply if the preferred placement didn’t “formally” move to adopt the child);

In re J.S. (applying the “continued custody” reasoning to a guardianship); and

In re Elise W. (discussing whether the case would change notice requirements when a parent never had custody)(unpublished case out of California’s First District).

In re T.S. (discussing when active efforts must start, in light of 1922 and 1912(d))

Opinion in Westmoreland v. Dept of Revenue: Taxes Paid to Crow Tribe on Coal Mine Not a State Tax Deduction

Kate Fort2 Comments

Opinion here.

Applying § 15-35-102(11), MCA, to disallow a state tax deduction does not undermine the Tribe’s sovereign authority to tax or govern itself. The Legislature has simply chosen to limit the class of governments to which payment of taxes constitutes a deductible expense for coal producers. By so doing, the Legislature did not implicate tribal sovereignty.
Moreover, as the Department notes, WRI lacks standing to raise a claim implicating the Tribe’s sovereignty. See Northern Border Pipeline Co. v. State, 237 Mont. 117, 128-29, 772 P.2d 829, 835-36 (1989) (Taxpayer corporation had standing to challenge a state property tax, but did “not have standing to assert the Tribes’ sovereign right of self-government in doing so.”). The District Court did not err in so concluding.

Appellant’s Brief

Appellee’s Brief

Reply Brief

Montana District Court Declines to Enjoin Transfer of Yellowstone Bison to Fort Peck

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here:

Citizens for Balanced Use v Maurier District Court Order

This matter is related to the Montana Supreme Court case, posts here and here.

Nez Perce to Propose Hunting Bison in Yellowstone

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here.

Wonder if we’ll have some litigation. The Yellowstone bison herd has been the subject of suits in the Ninth Circuit and the Montana Supreme Court.

Montana SCT Decides ICWA Notice & Active Efforts Appeal

Matthew L.M. Fletcher2 Comments

Here are the materials in In re J.S.:

Appellant Brief

State Brief

Reply Brief

Mont SCT Decision

 

 

Federal Court Dismisses Pro Se Effort to Return “Peace Flag”

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here are the materials in Gopher v. Cascade County (D. Mont.):

Complaint

DCT Order Dismissing Complaint

An excerpt:

Ms. Gopher seeks the return of a 13-star peace flag bundle and its contents. She contends that Cascade County has exercised illegal control over the Gopher family’s artifacts. She seeks an immediate injunction barring the effect of a November 12, 2012 state court order, the return of her family’s property which was subject to a probate action which commenced in Cascade County on July 22, 2010, and a stay of all state court proceedings.

The Montana Supreme Court ruled on this matter previously.

Montana SCT Asserts Jurisdiction over “Ojibwe Peace Flag” Probate

Matthew L.M. Fletcher1 Comment

Here are the materials in Estate of Gopher:

Appellant Brief

Appellee Brief

Reply Brief

Mont SCT Opinion

An excerpt:

In its order, the Blackfeet Tribal Court unequivocally declined to assert subject matter jurisdiction with respect to the flag, the subject of this appeal. The Blackfeet Tribal Court noted that the “flag is located in Cascade County and has never been on the Blackfeet reservation” and Dorothy was domiciled in Cascade County at the time of her death. The Blackfeet Tribal Court stated it “will not accept any further filings from the Gopher family in regards to the thirteen star flag until they have prevailed in their litigation in the State Court.” No evidence supports the siblings’ argument that the Blackfeet Tribal Court’s decision was made “prematurely or through error.” Because the Blackfeet Tribal Court has expressly declined to assert jurisdiction over the Estate property, it is clear that the District Court did not unlawfully infringe on the Blackfeet Tribe’s right of tribal self-government. Moreover, because Dorothy resided in Cascade County at the time of her death and the corpus of the Estate is located in Cascade County, venue was proper, and the District Court did not err when it assumed jurisdiction over the probate of the Estate.

Montana SCT Authorizes Transfer of Yellowstone Bison to Fort Peck Reservation

Matthew L.M. Fletcher2 Comments

Here is the news coverage.

Opinion here:

Mont. SCT Opinion

Synopsis

Briefs here.

Montana SCT Reverses Termination of Parental Rights because of ICWA Procedural Violations

Matthew L.M. Fletcher1 Comment

Here is the Montana Supreme Court’s ruling in In re K.B.:

Opinion

Excerpt:

Mother appeared with counsel at the termination hearing and contested the termination of her parental rights, suggesting instead that the State be granted a long-term guardianship of the children. The Tribe did not appear. Mother’s attorney informed the court:

I don’t think alcoholism is a reason to terminate under the Indian Child Welfare Act. My client has been making visits. My client is employed. And my client has been going to group care, in regard to an alcohol issue. The Indian Child Welfare Act does not encourage  termination regarding alcoholism. . . .

Because counsel could not support his client’s position with a specific citation to ICWA, the court responded that it could not consider counsel’s objection: “I’m saying, for the record, to the Montana Supreme Court and to you, frankly, I can’t consider an objection on legal authority that’s not cited to the Court.”

And the briefs:

Appellant

Appellee

Reply