Custody of Zier, In re, 87-431
| Decision Date | 01 March 1988 |
| Docket Number | No. 87-431,87-431 |
| Citation | 750 P.2d 1083,230 Mont. 464 |
| Parties | In re the CUSTODY OF Donald D. ZIER, Jr. |
| Court | Montana Supreme Court |
Michael G. Majerus, Billings, for appellant.
D. Michael Eakin, Montana Legal Services, Billings, for appellant.
Mr. Zier filed a petition for modification of child custody in the District Court for Yellowstone County. The respondent moved to dismiss the petition on grounds that the Crow Tribal Court was a more appropriate forum. The District Court granted this motion and deferred jurisdiction to the Tribal Court. We affirm. Mr. Zier presents one issue on appeal:
Did the District Court abuse its discretion by dismissing the petition for modification of custody, thereby deferring to the jurisdiction of the Crow Tribal Court?
Petitioner Donald Zier and respondent Meredith Hogan were married in 1983 at Crow Agency, Montana. Donald, Jr., was born to the couple in December of that year. In 1984 Mr. Zier petitioned the District Court of the Thirteenth Judicial District for a legal separation. Ms. Hogan responded by requesting dissolution, which was granted in March 1985. The parties were granted joint legal custody over Donald, Jr., with Ms. Hogan as primary custodian.
In August of 1985 Ms. Hogan and Mr. Zier agreed that he would have physical custody of the boy. Mr. Zier petitioned the Crow Tribal Court for guardianship, and the tribal court, in October 1985, placed the child in the custody of his father for a period of six months at which time another hearing was to be held to determine permanent custody. Evidently that hearing was not held. Mr. Zier moved to Billings in April 1986. In October 1986 he filed a petition in District Court seeking modification of that court's 1985 custody award and asking for full legal custody of Donald, Jr.
Later, the tribal court held an evidentiary hearing concerning custody of the boy and continued the matter until completion of a home study by Court Services of the Thirteenth Judicial District. In February 1987, Ms. Hogan filed a motion to dismiss the petition for modification of custody in the District Court on grounds that the Crow Tribal Court was a more appropriate forum. On July 29, 1987, the District Court deferred jurisdiction of the custody matter to the Crow Tribal Court and dismissed Mr. Zier's petition for modification of custody. This is the order from which Mr. Zier appeals.
Did the District Court abuse its discretion by dismissing the petition for modification of custody, thereby deferring to the jurisdiction of the Crow Tribal Court?
Mr. Zier argues that the District Court, not the Crow Tribal Court, was the "most appropriate forum for handling this custody dispute." Section 40-7-108, MCA, provides in pertinent part as follows:
A court which has jurisdiction under this chapter to make an initial or modification decree may decline to exercise its jurisdiction any time before making a decree if it finds that it is an inconvenient forum to make a custody determination under the circumstances of the case and that a court of another state is a more appropriate forum.
(2) A finding of inconvenient forum may be made upon the court's own motion or upon motion of a party or a guardian ad litem or other representative of the child.
(3) In determining if it is an inconvenient forum, the court shall consider if it is in the interest of the child that another state assume jurisdiction. For this purpose it may take into account the following factors, among others:
(a) if another state is or recently was the child's home state;
(b) if another state has a closer connection with the child and his family or with the child and one or more of the contestants;
(c) if substantial evidence concerning the child's present or future care, protection, training, and personal relationships is more readily available in another state;
(d) if the parties have agreed on another forum which is no less appropriate; and
(e) if the exercise of jurisdiction by a court of this state would contravene any of the purposes stated in 40-7-102.
This statute should be considered in the district court's determination...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Marriage of Skillen, In re
...tribes to maintain their rights of self-government and to control the internal relations of their members. See In re Custody of Zier (1988), 230 Mont. 464, 750 P.2d 1083; In re Marriage of Limpy (1981), 195 Mont. 314, 636 P.2d 266; State ex rel. Stewart v. District Court (1980), 187 Mont. 2......
-
Inquiry Concerning Complaint of Judicial Standards Comm'n v. Afraid
...This Court has recognized tribal sovereignty and the right of tribal self-government. See Skillen, ¶ 41 (citing In re Custody of Zier, 230 Mont. 464, 750 P.2d 1083 (1988); In re Marriage of Limpy, 195 Mont. 314, 636 P.2d 266 (1981); State ex rel. Stewart v. Dist. Ct., 187 Mont. 209, 609 P.2......