In re Welfare of C.B., (2008)

• Decision Date: 17 January 2008
• Docket Number: CHE-J-4/07-104
• Parties: IN RE THE WELFARE OF: C.B. v. M.M., APPELLEE.
• Court: Chehalis Tribal Court of Appeals

IN RE THE WELFARE OF: C.B. C.S., APPELLANT, M.M., APPELLEE.

No. CHE-J-4/07-104

Chehalis Tribal Court of Appeals Chehalis Indian Reservation Oakville, Washington

January 17, 2008

SYLLABUS BY THE COURT

SYLLABUS^*fn1

Trial court issued an order awarding guardianship of a minor based in part on a report prepared for the court that was not provided to the parties until immediately before the hearing on the merits.Court of Appeals holds that because (1) the code does not require parties to be provided with such reports; (2)the parties were in fact provided the report and given the opportunity to respond to it; and (3) other evidence in the record supported the court's ruling there was no deprivation of due process or abuse of discretion by trial court.Trial court order affirmed.

Appearances: Randal B. Brown, Attorney for Appellant C.S M.M., pro se.

Before: Lawrence Numkena, Chief Justice, Lorintha Umtuch, Justice, Lisa L. Atkinson, Justice.

OPINION

NUMKENA, C.J.

This matter came before the Chehalis Tribal Court of Appeals on December 14, 2007 pursuant to Appellant's Notice of Appeal filed on September 5, 2007.Appellant appeals the Trial Courts Orders Denying Guardianship and Granting Guardianship filed on August 30, 2007.

JURISDICTION

The Chehalis Court of Appeals has jurisdiction over C.B., an Indian youth who is a descendant of the Chehalis Tribe, Quinalt Tribe, and Puyallup Tribe, residing within the exterior boundaries of the Confederated Tribes of the Chehalis Reservation, as well as subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to Chehalis Title 17.

ISSUE ON APPEAL

Whether Appellant's allegation of procedural error by the trial court constitutes denial of due process and abuse of judicial discretion is supported by facts on the record.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

This Court's prior decisions establish that an abuse of discretion does not exist when the trial judge has followed proper procedures and there is substantial evidence in the record that supports each of the judge's findings of fact.If substantial evidence in the record supports the judgment and the judge has followed procedures and applied the law correctly, the judgment must be affirmed.See, e.g., Fern v. Torres, 6 NICS App. 200, 201 - 203(Chehalis TribalCt.App. 2004)

DISCUSSION

On April 16, 2007, the Appellee filed a Guardianship Petition.On May 21, 2007, the Appellant filed a Guardianship Petition.

A Guardianship Report was submitted to the court dated August 17, 2007 pursuant to Title 17, § 17.18.030.

A hearing on the petitions was held on August 22, 2007.

The Appellant stated the report was given to her five minutes before the hearing with a report attached from the internet on Reactive Attachment Disorder that is non-specific to Native American children.The Appellant contends the author of the report was not present in court which denied her the opportunity to cross examine the author of the report and that the judge placed a great deal of weight on the report.The Appellant also contends there was not adequate time to prepare for the report.The Appellant argued that the standard for child custody concerns and due process considerations should have been followed pursuant to Fern v. Torres, 6 NICS App. 200(Chehalis TribalCt.App 2004), and In Re: Custody of B.S., 6 NICS App. 113(Chehalis TribalCt.App. 2003).

Upon review of the record this court finds the Appellant was afforded due process with an opportunity to be heard.Neither party requested a continuance and the Appellant did not ask the court for a continuance or to subpoena the author of the report.The author of the report met with all parties.Title...