In re J.R.H., (1988)

• Decision Date: 21 June 1988
• Docket Number: CHE JUV 4/87-0032
• Parties: IN THE MATTER OF: J.R.H. (MINOR); WILLIAM P. HECK V. LILLIAN SWIFT
• Court: Chehalis Tribal Court of Appeals

IN THE MATTER OF: J.R.H. (MINOR);

WILLIAM P. HECK v. LILLIAN SWIFT

No. CHE JUV 4/87-0032

Chehalis Appellate Court Chehalis Indian Reservation Oakville, Washington

June 21, 1988

SUMMARY

Trial and appellate courts have subject matter jurisdiction to hear child custody cases when tribal members and their children are involved.Where an award of custody of a child is appealed, the Court of Appeals will not disturb the order awarding custody where the trial court was generally in compliance with an ordinance requiring consideration of a child's best interests.

James M. Brown, Aberdeen, Washington for petitioner and Lynn Houser, Olympia, Washington for respondent.

Before: Chehalis Court of Appeals; Honorable Judges Hollis Chough, Rose Purser and Jack Fiander presiding.

FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW, AND JUDGMENT ORDER

This matter came before the Chehalis Court of Appeals; Honorable Judges, Hollis Chough, Rose Purser and Jack Fiander presiding on the 21st day of June, 1988, an appeal petition having been filed by the respondent, Lillian Swift.

Present for the hearing were William P. Heck, Natural Father, and member of the Chehalis Tribe, 453 Howanut Road, Oakville Washington 98568 and James M. Brown, Attorney for William P Heck, 525 Seattle First National Bank Building, Aberdeen Washington 98520.Lillian Swift, Natural Mother, and member of the Quinault Tribe, Box 421, Taholah, Washington 98520 and Lynn Houser, Attorney for Lillian Swift, P.O. Box 10028, Olympia, WA.

The Respondent's petition sets forth seven (7) specific reasons for appealing the judgment entered on May 09, 1988, wherein custody of J.R.H., (a minor), was awarded to the natural father, William P. Heck.

The respondent's seven reasons for filing her appeal are based on the following:

1.The Chehalis Tribal Court did not appoint anyone to discuss family matters and to come to my home to see what sort of home and family life we have.

2.They never allowed a response or the presentation of evidence to refute any testimony of William Heck.

3.That there was no court records on many days when the court would ask questions of me.

4.When William Heck through his attorney would present their testimony or written statements the court would accept these then recess until the following month.When the court would again be in session, they would never allow me to respond but would allow the attorney for Mr. Heck to again present and make other statements and then recess again until the following month.

5.The Chehalis Tribal Court would appoint a guardian ad litem but they would again make statements which again the court would not allow a response to.

6.There have been four judges throughout the year long extension of this case which make me wonder as to continuity.

7.I am requesting the court to allow me my day in court to answer these accusations against me by the Chehalis Tribal Chairman and the Minister of the Chehalis Indian Shaker Church and the Attorney for William Heck.

The Chehalis Tribal Appellate Court, in order to proceed with this case, reviewed the applicable tribal laws, rules and ordinances, and a determination as to how this case could be processed was completed.There are three major legal issues to be addressed in this case.These issues are as follows:

1.Is this case in an appropriate tribal court?

2.What tribal authorities are applicable in this case?

3.Was the petitioner, Lillian Swift denied her day in Court ?

The Chehalis Appeals Court determined that the Chehalis Tribe does have tribal remedy procedures to handle administration and judicial remedies in appropriate tribal offices or a tribal forum that the tribe may establish.

In the case of Heck v. Swift, the trial court and appeals court do have legal jurisdiction of the case and subject matter.The Court also has determined that the applicable tribal authorities are as follows:

1.Chehalis Youth Ordinance 12, Chapter12A-020, JUDICIAL OFFICER.

2.APPEALS, Section 12A-02-020.

AUTHORITY

The Chehalis Youth Ordinance 12, Sections for Judicial Officer and Appeals are vague in terms of established procedures to handle child custody cases.Chapter 12.06 PLACEMENT PREFERENCE, specifically outlines placement procedures for detention or custody and or placement of a child in need.The Chehalis Tribal Constitution and By-laws, under Article III., BILL OF RIGHTS, mandates that:

"Indians and non-Indians have the right to petition for action or redress of grievances and due process of law."

There appears to be no reasons why the courts should not require exhaustion of this case through the Chehalis tribal justice system.A general requirement in cases such as this, will do much to strengthen tribal courts and tribal government authority to handle problems within the various Indian communities throughout the country.

BACKGROUND

On May 9, 1988, the Chehalis Tribal Court convened for a child custody hearing.William P. Heck appeared and was represented by and through his attorney; Respondent, Lillian Swift and her...