In re Galicia, (1991)

CourtLummi Tribal Court of Appeals
Decision Date12 April 1991
Docket Number90-JVDP-0875
CitationIn re Galicia (Lummi Tribal Ct. of App. 1991)
PartiesIN RE THE MATTER OF BABY BOY GALICIA, A MINOR INDIAN CHILD

Guardian ad litem Mary Ann Davis for Baby Boy Galacia attorney Harry L. Johnsen for the Lummi Indian Nation attorney Samuel J. Stiltner of Stiltner, Sinclair, Clement &amp Foster for Intervenors Marvin and Brenda Wilbur, Jr.

Before: Chief Justice Rosemary J. Irvin, Associate Justice Marguerite Bostrom, and Associate Justice Rose E. Purser.

SUMMARY

Lummi Indian Nation members Mary Beth and Norman Joe Galicia put their baby up for adoption immediately after its birth on September 12, 1989. The Lummi Children's Services made a pre-adoptive placement of the child with Marvin Wilbur, Jr. a Swinomish Tribe member, and his wife, Brenda Wilbur, who were on the agency's list of families waiting for an adoptive placement. On December 4, 1990, after the child had been living with the Wilburs for over a year, the Lummi Tribal Court issued an order terminating the birth parents' rights and placing the child with relatives of the birth mother for permanent adoption. The Wilburs, who had not been allowed to testify at trial, appealed.

The Tribal Court of Appeals ruled that the Wilburs had been wrongfully denied the status of parties in the proceedings. While affirming the trial court's order terminating the birth parents' rights, the appellate panel remanded the case for a new trial on the issue of the proper adoptive placement of the child under provisions of the Lummi Tribal Adoption Code. In accordance with Section 8.8.06(e) of the Lummi Code, it was found "consistent with the best interest of the child" that continued placement of the child be with the Wilburs until adoption proceedings had been completed.

STIPULATION AND AGREED ORDER

The Lummi Indian Nation, represented by its attorney, Harry L Johnsen, guardian ad litem Mary Ann Davis, and intervenors Marvin and Brenda Wilbur, Jr., represented by Samuel J. Stiltner, agree to the following disposition of the appeal in this matter:

1. The Court of Appeals has ruled that the Wilburs were wrongfully denied the status of parties in the trial court proceedings in August, 1990, and that the trial on appeal would be an entirely new proceeding limited to the issue of placement of the child, but involving new discovery, evidence and testimony. Such a proceeding would necessarily entail further delay in permanency planning for this child. The child was born September 12, 1989, and has...

Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI

Get Started for Free

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex