![]() The Montana Supreme Court granted the requested relief, holding that the District Court possessed jurisdiction. ![]() The Runaboves then filed an original application in the Montana Supreme Court for a writ of supervisory control or other appropriate writ to set aside the order of dismissal. The Appellate Court of the Tribe expressed the opinion that it did not, and the State District Court dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. After a hearing, the District Court certified to the Appellate Court of the Northern Cheyenne Tribe the question whether an ordinance of the Northern Cheyenne Tribe conferred jurisdiction upon the District Court. Tribal Court possessed exclusive jurisdiction. Petitioner moved to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, asserting that the U. On August 30, 1974, however, the Tribal Court entered an order granting petitioner temporary custody of Ivan "for a period of six weeks during the summer months." įour days before the entry of that order, Josephine Runsabove and her husband initiated an adoption proceeding in the District Court for the Sixteenth Judicial District of Montana. In 1973, the Tribal Court rejected petitioner's request to regain custody of her son. On July 1, 1969, after petitioner and Ivan's father were divorced, the Tribal Court of the Northern Cheyenne Tribe found that petitioner had neglected Ivan, awarded temporary custody to Josephine Runsabove, and made Ivan a ward of the court. Petitioner is the mother of Ivan Firecrow. 383ĭisagreeing with an advisory opinion of the Appellate Court of the Northern Cheyenne Tribe, the Montana Supreme Court held that the state court has jurisdiction over an adoption proceeding in which all parties are members of the Tribe and residents of the Northern Cheyenne Indian Reservation. (d) Denying tribal member plaintiffs access to Montana courts in adoption proceedings does not constitute impermissible racial discrimination, since (1) the Tribal Court's exclusive jurisdiction derives not from the plaintiffs' race, but from the Tribe's quasi-sovereign status under federal law, and (2) even if a jurisdictional holding occasionally denies an Indian plaintiff a forum to which a non-Indian has access, such disparate treatment of the Indian U. ![]() 382 ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT OF MONTANA Syllabus Is justified as a benefit to the class of which he is a member by furthering the congressional policy of Indian self-government.Ĭertiorari granted _ Mont. (d) Denying tribal member plaintiffs access to Montana courts in adoption proceedings does not constitute impermissible racial discrimination, since (1) the Tribal Court's exclusive jurisdiction derives not from the plaintiffs' race, but from the Tribe's quasi-sovereign status under federal law, and (2) even if a jurisdictional holding occasionally denies an Indian plaintiff a forum to which a non-Indian has access, such disparate treatment of the Indian (c) Even assuming that the Montana courts properly exercised jurisdiction over Indian adoptions prior to the organization of the Tribe, that jurisdiction has now been preempted by creation of a Tribal Court with jurisdiction over adoptions pursuant to the Indian Reorganization Act of 1934. § 372a, which is concerned solely with the documentation necessary to prove adoption by an Indian in proceedings before the Secretary of the Interior, and which recognizes adoption "by a judgment or decree of a State court" as one means of documentation, nowhere addresses the jurisdiction of state courts to render such judgments or decrees. ![]() (b) No federal statute sanctions such interference with tribal self-government. (a) Montana state court jurisdiction over such a proceeding would interfere with the powers of self-government conferred upon the Tribe by federal law and exercised through the Tribal Court would subject a dispute arising on the reservation among reservation Indians to a forum other than the one they have established for themselves and, as the record in this case indicates, would risk conflicting adjudications affecting the custody of the child sought to be adopted, and would correspondingly diminish the tribal court's authority. Tribal Court of the Northern Cheyenne Tribe held to have exclusive jurisdiction over an adoption proceeding arising on the Northern Cheyenne Indian Reservation in which all parties are members of the Tribe residing on the reservation. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
Details
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |