Natewa v. Natewa
| Decision Date | 30 June 1972 |
| Docket Number | No. 9374,9374 |
| Citation | 499 P.2d 691,84 N.M. 69,1972 NMSC 49 |
| Parties | Margaret NATEWA, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Stanley NATEWA, Defendant-Appellant. |
| Court | New Mexico Supreme Court |
This appeal rises from an order requiring the defendant to pay support for his minor child, then residing with his wife in Wisconsin.
Appellant and his wife, appellee herein, though still married, are living apart. The appellee is living in Wisconsin with one child of the marriage, and the appellant, a Zuni Indian, is residing within the Zuni Indian Reservation, in New Mexico. Appellee is not a Zuni Indian. In 1967, the appellee filed a complaint in the Wisconsin district court in accordance with that State's Uniform Reciprocal Enforcement of Support Act, Wis.Stat.1967, § 52.10, asking that appellant be ordered to pay a sum as determined by the New Mexico district court, as support for the child living with her. The certificate properly certified by the Wisconsin Court was transmitted to the district court of McKinley County, New Mexico. The district attorney, thereupon and in accordance with the New Mexico Reciprocal Enforcement of Support Act, § 22--19--1 et seq., N.M.S.A.1953 Comp., since revised to New Mexico Revised Reciprocal Enforcement of Support Act, § 22--19--28 et seq., N.M.S.A.1953 Comp. (1971 Pocket Supp.), in 1968 obtained an order requiring appellant to pay monthly child support to appellee. Appellant appeared with counsel at this hearing. In August, 1971, the District Attorney for McKinley County filed a second petition in the same court, alleging that appellant had failed to make payments under the 1968 order. Appellant again appeared in person and by counsel, and filed a motion to vacate the 1968 order for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. The court denied the motion to vacate and thereupon entered an order requiring that appellant make increased monthly payments until the arrearages had been paid.
Appellant raises three questions on appeal. First, that the courts of the State of New Mexico lack authority to exercise jurisdiction over child support actions against tribal members residing on the Zuni Indian Reservation. Second, that the child support orders entered against appellant are void for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. Third, that the 1968 judgment is vulnerable to a motion to vacate for voidness under Rule 60(b)(4) of the New Mexico Rules of Civil Procedure (§ 21--1--1(60)(b)(4), N.M.S.A.1953 (Repl.Vol. 4, 1970)).
In support of his first contention, appellant directs our attention to 25 C.F.R. § 11.30, 'Determination of paternity and support.' He contends that this section vests exclusive control over child support actions in the tribal courts. The first sentence of this section dispels this contention and reads:
'The Court of Indian Offenses shall have jurisdiction of all suits brought to determine the paternity of a child and to obtain a judgment for the support of the child.' (Emphasis added.)
It is obvious that this section applied to child support actions relating to paternity determination, and not as here, to determine the obligation of support for a child that is the result of a valid marriage between the parties.
Additionally, in support of his first contention, appellant directs our attention to Williams v. Lee, 358 U.S. 217, 79 S.Ct. 269, 3 L.Ed.2d 251, and Organized Village of Kake v. Egan, 369 U.S. 60, 82 S.Ct. 562, 7 L.Ed.2d 573, as standing for the proposition that absent express congressional legislation to the contrary, state courts may not exercise jurisdiction where such exercise interferes with tribal self-government. It is our understanding of those cases that state law can be made applicable to reservation Indians unless such applicability interferes with the internal self-government of the tribe or contravenes an express grant or reservation by Federal law. See New York et rel. Ray v. Martin 326 U.S. 496, 66 S.Ct. 307, 90 L.Ed. 261. Thus, the basic question before us is whether the enforcement of the New Mexico Revised Uniform Reciprocal Enforcement of Support Act, supra, interferes with the internal self-government of the Zuni Tribe or contravenes an express federal grant or reservation. We think not.
It is our view that the application of the Act, supra, to this appellant in no way interferes with the internal self-government of the Zuni Tribe, nor does it contravene any express federal grant or reservation. The support obligation here arises from the marital relationship between appellant...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Sheppard v. Sheppard
...has been held that an Indian can be brought before a state court to answer a URESA petition for support of his child. Natewa v. Natewa, 84 N.M. 69, 499 P.2d 691 (1972). We conclude that a review of the authorities, opinions of the Supreme Court, lower federal courts and our sister jurisdict......
-
State Securities, Inc. v. Anderson
...enforcement of the New Mexico Revised Uniform Reciprocal Enforcement of Support Act against an Indian defendant, Natewa v. Natewa, 84 N.M. 69, 499 P.2d 691 (1972); by the state of sanitation and quarantine laws on a reservation, inspections for health and educational purposes, and enforceme......
-
Hunt v. O'Cheskey
...with the internal self-government of the tribe or contravenes an express grant or reservation by Federal law.' Natewa v. Natewa, 84 N.M. 69, 499 P.2d 691 (1972). But there can be no doubt that the imposition of an income tax does interfere with the internal self-government of the tribe. The......
-
State ex rel. Flammond v. Flammond
...District Court had no basis to assert personal jurisdiction over the respondent. Contrary to the mother's contentions, Natewa v. Natewa (1972), 84 N.M. 69, 499 P.2d 691, does not support state jurisdiction in this case. There the New Mexico Supreme Court found state jurisdiction over the UR......