Court Opinion

ID: 9688352
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 17:44:28.223346+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:18:37.725936
License: Public Domain

WUEST, Chief Justice
(specially concurring).
With all due respect to the dissenting opinions, I believe comity is not the issue in this case. Norman is appealing the trial court’s decision which held him in contempt of the judgment ordering him to make child support payments. He should have raised the comity issue in the paternity support proceeding which was decided in 1985.* In any event, the judgment was never appealed and the decision of the trial court became final.
During the recent contempt proceeding now on appeal, the jurisdiction issue was discussed as follows:
THE COURT: Right. But once he’s in the court — -actually, everything revolves around jurisdiction. I don’t think they’re really disputing anything except jurisdiction; isn’t that right?
MR. MORGAN: Yes, jurisdiction is the question, yes.
THE COURT: Once this is resolved, if we don’t have jurisdiction, everything is moot, anyway.
MR. GELLHAUS: My concern is that the original order which was entered back in — I don’t have the date of the *52order, but the July 7th, '84 hearing where you originally made your order, I guess it’s our position that the appeal time has run on that.
THE COURT: That’s true, but they have a new one on contempt, and I suppose they could go back into the original — one thing on jurisdiction, if you don’t have jurisdiction, you never had jurisdiction, no matter what has happened, if the Supreme Court takes that position. It’s from an exception. In other words, I don’t think — if I have jurisdiction, you will be right, but if I don’t have jurisdiction and it’s an issue, and they’re complaining on this order, then it goes back to the original starting point and you have to have jurisdiction at the time you do it. That’s something I don’t think you can lose by default. We’ll find out.
Stipulation on Order to Show Cause dated 5-14-87 at 4-5.
The issue before this court is whether the appellant can collaterally attack the 1985 support order, claiming lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The answer is no. As indicated in the majority opinion, the state has subject matter jurisdiction. The tribal courts probably have jurisdiction in this type of case in Indian country. Perhaps this court would have granted comity had the issue been presented to us. Speculating on hypothetical situations, however, has no relationship to the issue before this court, ie., subject matter jurisdiction. Comity is a non-issue in this contempt proceeding.

 There is no transcript of the proceedings in the paternity action nor an answer to the paternity complaint in the settled record. The judgment, however, states that the matter was heard on its merits and that both parties were present with their attorneys. The memorandum opinion states that the only issues were paternity and support.