Case Title: STATE EX REL FIRECROW v DIST COU

Citation: 

Docket Number: 

State: montana

Court: Montana Supreme Court

Date: 1975-06-02T00:00:00Z

Document:
No. 1 3 8 2 5 I N THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 1975 STATE OF MONTANA, ex re1 I N THE MATTER OF THE ADOPTION OF IVAN FIRECROW, a m i n o r by LEROY RUNSABOVE and JOSEPHINE RUNSABOVE, Petitioners, THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE SIXTEENTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA, I N AM) FOR THE COUNTY OF ROSEBUD; and THE HONORABLE ALFRED B e COATE, JUDGE THEREOF, R e s p o n d e n t s , ORIGINAL PROCEEDING : C o u n s e l of R e c o r d : For Petitioners : L e w i s E. B r u e g g e m a n n , argued, R i l l i r n g s , M o n t a n a For R e s p o n d e n t s : C l a r e n c e T. B e l u e argued, H a r d i n , Montana S u b m i t t e d : May 14, 1975 D e c i d e d : JUk 2 - M r . Justice Wesley Castles delivered the Opinion of the Court. This i s a p e t i t i o n f o r a w r i t of supervisory control or other appropriate w r i t seeking r e l i e f from an order of the dis- t r i c t court of the sixteenth j u d i c i a l d i s t r i c t , Rosebud County, which held t h e d i s t r i c t court had no jurisdiction i n t h i s adoption proceeding and ordered t h e case dismissed. O n August 20, 1974, petitioners Leroy and Josephine Runsabove f i l e d i n t h e d i s t r i c t court a p e t i t i o n f o r the adoption of Ivan Firecrow, a minor c h i l d , born May 10, 1965. Consent t o the adoption and waiver of further notice, executed by the n a t u r a l f a t h e r , was f i l e d with the p e t i t i o n f o r adoption. Petitioners, the c h i l d , and the n a t u r a l mother a r e a l l enrolled members of the Northern Cheyenne Tribe and have resided on the Northern Cheyenne Reservation a t a l l times pertinent t o t h i s matter. Previously, on July 1, 1969, Ivan Firecrow was made a ward of t h e Northern Cheyenne Tribal Court upon a finding t h a t t h e natural mother had neglected the child. A n order was entered t h a t day giving p e t i t i o n e r s temporary custody of the child. They have had custody of the child since t h a t time. O n August 30, 1974, the t r i b a l court ordered the n a t u r a l mother be granted temporary custody of the c h i l d f o r s i x weeks during the summer months. Article 111, section 2 Revised Law and Order Ordinances of the Northern Cheyenne Tribe of t h e Northern Cheyenne Reservation, reads, i n pertinent part: "The Tribal Court of the Northern Cheyenne Reservation s h a l l have jurisdiction t o hear, pass upon, and approve applications f o r adoptions among members of t h e Northern Cheyenne Tribe. I t Upon proper showing and decision by the court, such adoptions s h a l l be binding upon a l l concerned and hereafter only adoptions so approved by the Tribal Court s h a l l be recognized." The d i s t r i c t court held a hearing upon the p e t i t i o n f o r adoption on October 11, 1974. Ivan was present a t the hearing, having come from Oregon where he attends school under the auspices of the Morman Church, during the school year. The natural mother objected t o the hearing alleging the d i s t r i c t court had no jurisdiction t o hear and grant the p e t i t i o n f o r adoption and, t h a t the matter was within the exclusive j u r i s - diction of the t r i b a l court. Following submission of b r i e f s on the i s s u e of jurisdiction and receipt of an advisory opinion from the appellate court of the Northern Cheyenne Tribe, the d i s t r i c t court issued i t s order holding t h a t it had no jurisdiction over the adoption and ordered the case dismissed. W e a r e presented with a single issue f o r review: Whether, upon the f a c t s outlined above, the d i s t r i c t court has subject matter jurisdiction over the instant p e t i t i o n f o r adoption? W e hold it does have such jurisdiction. ~ o n t a n a ' s s t a t u t e s regarding adoption a r e i n Chapter 2, T i t l e 61, R.C.M. 1947. Section 61-202 reads: I 1 Any child present within t h i s s t a t e a t the t i m e the p e t i t i o n f o r adoption i s f i l e d , irrespective of place of b i r t h o r place of residence, may be adopted. I I Section 61-204 reads: "Proceedings f o r adoption must be brought i n the d i s t r i c t court of the county where the p e t i t i o n e r s reside. I I The s t a t u t e s have been complied with. Ivan was within Montana, a t home with p e t i t i o n e r s during summer vacation when the p e t i t i o n was f i l e d . Petitioners place of residence i s the town of Lame Deer, county of Rosebud, s t a t e of Montana. While the residence of petitioners and Ivan is within t h e e x t e r i o r boundaries of the Northern Cheyenne Reservation, t h a t residence is a l s o within the s t a t e of Montana. Organized Village of Icake v. Egan, 369 U.S. 60, 82 S.Ct. 562, 7 L ed 2d 573. The Northern Cheyenne Tribe is incorporated pursuant t o the Wheeler-Howard Act, 25 U.S.C. $ 461 e t seq. It i s organized and e x i s t i n g under a constitution and by-laws r a t i f i e d by the t r i b e on November 2, 1935, and approved by the Secretary of the I n t e r i o r on November 23, 1935. Prior t o t h a t time the courts of t h i s s t a t e had j u r i s d i c t i o n over adoption matters involving Indians. State ex r e l . Iron Bear v. D i s t r i c t Court, 162 Mont. 335, 512 P.2d 1292; Bad Horse v. Bad Horse, 163 Mont. 445, 517 P.2d 893, 31 St.Rep'. 22. The jurisdiction of the courts of the s t a t e of Montana i s not divested by the subsequent, u n i l a t e r a l action of the Northern Cheyenne Tribe i n enacting A r t i c l e 111, section 2, of i t s Revised Law and Order Ordinances, heretofore quoted. Assuming t h a t the t r i b a l court has jurisdiction over adoptions in- volving Indians, it i s a jurisdiction concurrent with t h a t of the d i s t r i c t court. It i s not an exclusive jurisdiction. The United States Congress has implicitly recognized t h a t s t a t e courts have concurrent jurisdiction over adoptions involving Indians i n 25 U.S.C. § 372a. The d i s t r i c t court having always had jurisdic- tion over adoptions involving Indians, 25 U.S.C. 5 1322 i s n o t applicable. This Court i n Bad Horse v. Bad Horse, 163 Mont. 445, 517 P.2d 893, 895, 31 St.R.ep. 22, 25, stated: " ~ n r o l l e d members of Indian t r i b e s within Montana a r e c i t i z e n s of the United States and c i t i z e n s of the s t a t e of Montana. A n Indian i s e n t i t l e d , a s any other c i t i z e n , t o bring an action i n the courts of t h i s s t a t e . A r t . 111, Sec. 6, of the 1889 Montana Constitution (Art. 11, Sec. 16 of the 1972 Montana Constitution); Section 83-102, R.C.M. 1947; Bonnet v. Seekins, 126 Mont. 24, 243 P.2d 317." Compare McCrea v. Busch, 164 Mont. 442, 524 P.2d 781, 31 St.Rep. 551, where an Indian sued a non-Indian i n a s t a t e court f o r damages a r i s i n g out of an accident on a reservation. Being c i t i z e n s of the s t a t e of liontana, p e t i t i o n e r s and Ivan a r e e n t i t l e d t o the equal protection of the laws. Article 11, Section 4, 1972 Montana Constitution. Petitioners a r e e n t i t l e d t o the use of Montana's court system on a par with other Montana c i t i z e n s regardless of the f a c t t h a t they a r e en- rolled members of an Indian t r i b e and r e s i d e within t h e e x t e r i o r boundaries of t h a t Indian reservation. Petitioners and Ivan a r e e n t i t l e d t o the benefit of Montana's adoption s t a t u t e s , a s a r e a l l Montana c i t i z e n s , regardless of the f a c t they a r e enrolled members of an Indian t r i b e and reside within the e x t e r i o r boundaries of t h a t Indian reservation. To hold t h a t the d i s t r i c t court does not have subject matter jurisdiction over t h i s controversy would be t o deprive petitioners and Ivan of these r i g h t s of citizenship. It would make them something l e s s than f u l l c i t i z e n s . The order of the d i s t r i c t court i s reversed and the matter i s remanded f o r further proceedings consistent with t h i s opinion. / /\chief J u s t i c e / Justices. P