Court Opinion

ID: 5155904
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2022-01-02 02:19:13.670252+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:25:20.292419
License: Public Domain

WINCHESTER, J.,
concurring in part and dissenting in part:
{1 I concur with the majority opinion's finding that § 1911(b) does not preclude tribal court jurisdiction when transfer is sought after parental rights are terminated. I dissent to that part of the opinion which finds that COCA erred "by failing to use the 'clear and convincing' evidence standard in its review of the trial court's finding of 'good cause' to deny the Tribe's request."
12 I believe that the determination of whether good cause exists to retain jurisdiction is within the trial court's discretion and is best determined on a case-by-case basis after consideration of all the relevant cireum-stances involved. It is my opinion that the trial judge considered all relevant factors and properly declined to transfer the case to the Puyallup Tribal Court in Washington State. The majority opinion's use of the higher, clear and convincing standard of proof, which *173is required in parental termination cases, is inappropriate in this purely jurisdictional matter.
{3 I agree with the majority that the Tribe's delay in seeking the motion to transfer was likely justified. However, I believe that the inconvenience of the Tribe's Washington State location coupled with the fact that the vast majority of witnesses and all relevant evidence reside in Oklahoma justify the trial court's determination of good cause to retain the case. Accordingly, I would affirm the ruling of the trial court denying the Tribe's request to transfer jurisdiction.