Uniform Child-Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act

Alaska SCT Briefs in Asa’carsarmiut Tribal Council v. Wheeler

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here:

Asa’carsarmiut Tribal Council Opening Brief

Wheeler Response Brief

Asa’carsarmiut Tribal Council Reply

Here are the questions presented (from the opening brief):

1. Whether, in light of this Court’s prior precedents, particularly State v. Native Village of Tanana, 249 P.3d 734 (Alaska 2011), a Superior Court may try a custody action in a matter involving an Alaska Native child without adhering to the requirements of Alaska’s Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act (“UCCJEA”), AS 25.30.300, et seq., when a tribal court has previously entered an initial determination regarding the child.
2. Whether the Superior Court erred in interpreting Alaska’s UCCJEA, AS 25.30.300, et. seq., as excluding tribal courts within the meaning of “court” in AS 25.30.909(6) and erred in failing to register the Asa’carsarmiut Tribal Court custody order, in light of the Court’s prior precedents, particularly State v. Native Village of Tanana, 249 P.3d 734 (Alaska 2011).
3. Whether the Superior Court erred in concluding that it had “at least concurrent jurisdiction over the issue of Jacob’s custody,” and proceeded to enter an initial child custody determination without giving comity to or contacting the Asa‘carsarmiut Tribal Court and requesting that the Asa‘carsarmiut Tribal Court determine that it no longer had exclusive, continuing jurisdiction or, alternatively, establishing that the Superior Court “would be a more convenient forum.”
4. Whether, if it is found that the Superior Court properly had jurisdiction to modify the Asa’carsarmiut Tribal Court order pursuant to AS 25.30.320, the Superior Court erred by failing to enter an Order Modifying Custody that stated its authority to modify the Asa‘carsarmiut Tribal Court order as well as its findings regarding a *3 substantial change of circumstances, pursuant to AS 25.20.110 rather than a Final Custody Decree and Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law.
5. Whether, in light of the Court’s prior precedent, particularly John v. Baker, 982 P.2d 738 (Alaska 1999), a Superior Court may try a custody action in a matter involving an Alaska Native child without engaging in a comity analysis when a tribal court had previously entered a custody order regarding the child.

 

Florida Appeals Court Strips Miccosukee Tribal Court of Jurisdiction in UCCJEA Matter

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here is the opinion in Billie v. Stier:

Fla Ct App Opinion

An excerpt:

This Petition for a Writ of Prohibition evolves out of a custody dispute between the mother, who is a member of the Miccosukee Tribe of Indians, and the father, who is not a member  of the tribe of Native American heritage. The issue is whether the Miccosukee Tribal Court or the Circuit Court of the Eleventh Judicial Circuit has the jurisdiction to decide the custody dispute. The mother petitions for a writ prohibiting the Circuit Court from exercising jurisdiction over the custody matter. Based on the facts of this case and the Uniform Child Custody, Jurisdiction, and Enforcement Act (“UCCJEA”), we conclude that the Circuit Court was correct in determining that it, and not the Tribal Court, has  jurisdiction to decide the custody issues and we therefore deny the petition.

Penn. Superior Court Affirms Transfer of Indian Child Welfare Case to Oglala Tribal Court

Matthew L.M. Fletcher1 Comment

Here is the opinion: C.L. v Z.M.F.H

Federal Court Dismisses Tribal Claim to Uproot State Court UCCJEA Jurisdiction

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

The case is Rosebud Sioux Tribe v. Duwyenie (D. Ariz.). The state court opinion is posted here.

Here are the materials:

State Judicial Defendant Motion to Dismiss

Duwyenie Motion to Dismiss

RST Response to State

RST Response to Duwyenie

State Judicial Defendant Reply

Duwyenie Reply

DCT Order Dismissing Claim

Did I say ICWA? Oops. I meant UCCJEA….

New Mexico Court Decides Indian Jurisdiction Case

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Here is the opinion in Garcia v. Gutierrez, from the New Mexico Supreme Court (Garcia v Gutierrez — NM SCT Opinion). An excerpt:

In this case—a divorce and custody dispute between an Indian father and a
non-Indian mother whose children are enrolled members of the Pojoaque Pueblo—state and
tribal courts have entered conflicting decrees. Regrettably, complete resolution of that

In this case—a divorce and custody dispute between an Indian father and a non-Indian mother whose children are enrolled members of the Pojoaque Pueblo—state and tribal courts have entered conflicting decrees. Regrettably, complete resolution of that conflict lies beyond our reach.

What we can do, however, is conclude that the state court does have jurisdiction. The tribal court—given the importance of the Pueblo’s children to its culture and its future—likely has jurisdiction; and neither is exclusive of the other. As has long been the tradition in New Mexico, the state and tribal courts must share jurisdiction under principles of comity and work out their differences, guided by universally accepted principles of doing what is in the best interests of the children. See Fox v. Doak, 78 N.M. 743, 744, 438 P.2d 153, 154 (1968) (“In making [a child-custody determination, a court’s] controlling influence should be the welfare and best interests of the child.”).

Thanks to T.L.M. for the head’s up.

New Article on the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction Enforcement Act

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Aaby — Understanding the UCCJEA

An excerpt:

Tribal court proceedings are now included in some instances. For example, under the UCCJEA, a state court will be required to treat tribes as if they were states and tribal court custody proceedings as if they were sister state court proceedings and to enforce tribal court custody orders.

New Mexico Supreme Court Grants Cert in Indian Country Jurisdiction Case

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

The case is captioned Garcia v. Gutierrez (opinion). The issue was stated by the New Mexico Court of Appeals as such:

This case comes before us on appeal from a partial final order pursuant to a divorce between Angelina Garcia and Matthew Gutierrez. Gutierrez, who is a member of the Pueblo of Pojoaque, argued that the district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over the issues raised in the petition as a matter of state law and that, even if the district court did have such jurisdiction under our state statutes, its exercise of jurisdiction was improper as a matter of federal Indian law. As we conclude that the district court had jurisdiction over those issues raised in the petition for dissolution of marriage that were unrelated to child custody, we affirm the district court’s order as to those issues. The question of the district court’s subject matter jurisdiction over the custody dispute requires this Court to determine whether land owned in fee by a non-Indian within the exterior boundaries of a pueblo is considered part of a “tribe” for purposes of determining the “home state” of a child under the Uniform Child-Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act (UCCJEA), NMSA 1978, Sections 40-10A-101 to -403 (2001). As we conclude that such land is part of the tribe as that term is used in the UCCJEA, we hold that the district court erred in concluding that the children in this case had no home state and in finding that it, rather than the tribal court, had jurisdiction. Accordingly, we reverse the district court as to the custody matters and remand so that those claims may be dismissed.