No. 13825 

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 

1975 

STATE OF MONTANA, ex re1 IN THE 

MATTER OF THE ADOPTION OF IVAN 

FIRECROW, a minor by LEROY RUNSABOVE and 

JOSEPHINE RUNSABOVE, 

Petitioners, 

THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE SIXTEENTH JUDICIAL 

DISTRICT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA, IN AM) FOR 

THE COUNTY OF ROSEBUD; and THE HONORABLE 

ALFRED Be COATE, JUDGE THEREOF, 

Respondents, 

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING : 

Counsel of Record: 

For Petitioners : 

Lewis E. Brueggemann, argued, Rillirngs, Montana 

For Respondents : 

Clarence T. Belue argued, Hardin, Montana 

Submitted: May 14, 1975 

Decided : JUk 2 - 
Mr. Justice Wesley Castles delivered the Opinion of the Court. 

This is a petition for a writ of supervisory control or 

other appropriate writ seeking relief from an order of the district court of the sixteenth judicial district, Rosebud County, 

which held the district court had no jurisdiction in this adoption 

proceeding and ordered the case dismissed. 

On August 20, 1974, petitioners Leroy and Josephine 

Runsabove filed in the district court a petition for the adoption 

of Ivan Firecrow, a minor child, born May 10, 1965. Consent to 

the adoption and waiver of further notice, executed by the natural 

father, was filed with the petition for adoption. Petitioners, 

the child, and the natural mother are all enrolled members of the 

Northern Cheyenne Tribe and have resided on the Northern Cheyenne 

Reservation a t a l l times pertinent to this matter. 

Previously, on July 1, 1969, Ivan Firecrow was made a 

ward of the Northern Cheyenne Tribal Court upon a finding that 

the natural mother had neglected the child. An order was entered 

that day giving petitioners temporary custody of the child. They 

have had custody of the child since that time. On August 30, 1974, 

the tribal court ordered the natural mother be granted temporary 

custody of the child for six weeks during the summer months. 

Article 111, section 2 Revised Law and Order Ordinances 

of the Northern Cheyenne Tribe of the Northern Cheyenne Reservation, 

reads, in pertinent part: 

"The Tribal Court of the Northern Cheyenne 

Reservation shall have jurisdiction to hear, 

pass upon, and approve applications for adoptions 

among members of the Northern Cheyenne Tribe. 

It Upon proper showing and decision by the court, 

such adoptions shall be binding upon all concerned 

and hereafter only adoptions so approved by the 

Tribal Court shall be recognized." 
The district court held a hearing upon the petition 

for adoption on October 11, 1974. Ivan was present at 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 to the hearing alleging the district 

court had no jurisdiction to hear and grant the petition for 

adoption and, that the matter was within the exclusive jurisdiction of the tribal court. Following submission of briefs on 

the issue of jurisdiction and receipt of an advisory opinion from 

the appellate court of the Northern Cheyenne Tribe, the district 

court issued its order holding that it had no jurisdiction over 

the adoption and ordered the case dismissed. 

We are presented with a single issue for review: Whether, 

upon the facts outlined above, the district court has subject 

matter jurisdiction over the instant petition for adoption? We 

hold it does have such jurisdiction. 

~ontana's statutes regarding adoption are in Chapter 2, 

Title 61, R.C.M. 1947. Section 61-202 reads: 

I 1 Any child present within this state at the time 

the petition for adoption is filed, irrespective 

of place of birth or place of residence, may be 

adopted. I I 

Section 61-204 reads: 

"Proceedings for adoption must be brought in the 

district court of the county where the petitioners 

reside. I I 

The statutes have been complied with. Ivan was within Montana, 

at home with petitioners during summer vacation when the petition 

was filed. Petitioners place of residence is the town of Lame 

Deer, county of Rosebud, state of Montana. While the residence 

of petitioners and Ivan is within the exterior boundaries of the 

Northern Cheyenne Reservation, that residence is also within the 

state 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 to 

the Wheeler-Howard Act, 25 U.S.C. $ 461 et seq. It is organized 

and existing under a constitution and by-laws ratified by the 

tribe on November 2, 1935, and approved by the Secretary of the 

Interior on November 23, 1935. Prior to that time the courts of 

this state had jurisdiction over adoption matters involving 

Indians. State ex rel. Iron Bear v. District 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 state of Montana 

is not divested by the subsequent, unilateral action of the 

Northern Cheyenne Tribe in enacting Article 111, section 2, of 

its Revised Law and Order Ordinances, heretofore quoted. 

Assuming that the tribal court has jurisdiction over adoptions involving Indians, it is a jurisdiction concurrent with that of the 

district court. It is not an exclusive jurisdiction. The United 

States Congress has implicitly recognized that state courts have 

concurrent jurisdiction over adoptions involving Indians in 25 

U.S.C. § 372a. The district court having always had jurisdiction over adoptions involving Indians, 25 U.S.C. 5 1322 is not 

applicable. 

This Court in Bad Horse v. Bad Horse, 163 Mont. 445, 517 

P.2d 893, 895, 31 St.R.ep. 22, 25, stated: 

"~nrolled members of Indian tribes within Montana 

are citizens of the United States and citizens of 

the state of Montana. An Indian is entitled, as 

any other citizen, to bring an action in the courts 

of this state. Art. 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 in a state court for damages 

arising out of an accident on a reservation. 
Being citizens of the state of liontana, petitioners 

and Ivan are entitled to the equal protection of the laws. 

Article 11, Section 4, 1972 Montana Constitution. Petitioners 

are entitled to the use of Montana's court system on a par with 

other Montana citizens regardless of the fact that they are enrolled members of an Indian tribe and reside within the exterior 

boundaries of that Indian reservation. Petitioners and Ivan 

are entitled to the benefit of Montana's adoption statutes, as are 

all Montana citizens, regardless of the fact they are enrolled 

members of an Indian tribe and reside within the exterior boundaries 

of that Indian reservation. To hold that the district court does 

not have subject matter jurisdiction over this controversy would 

be to deprive petitioners and Ivan of these rights of citizenship. 

It would make them something less than full citizens. 

The order of the district court is reversed and the matter 

is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. 

/ /\chief Justice 

/ Justices. P