This summary was computer-generated without any editorial revision. It is not official, has not been checked for accuracy, and is NOT citable.
Facts
A divorce and child custody dispute arose between an Indian father, a member of the Pojoaque Pueblo, and a non-Indian mother. The children, enrolled members of the Pueblo, lived on Pueblo lands for part of their lives. Following domestic violence incidents, the mother moved with the children to her father’s non-Indian fee land within the Pueblo’s boundaries. Conflicting custody orders were issued by state and tribal courts (paras 2-3, 6-9).
Procedural History
- District Court, August 26, 2002: Awarded temporary custody of the children to the mother (para 8).
- Pojoaque Tribal Court, April 26, 2004: Issued a decree awarding joint custody, asserting exclusive jurisdiction over the welfare of enrolled tribal children (para 9).
- District Court, January 11, 2006: Concluded it had jurisdiction over the divorce and custody issues, entering a partial final order (para 10).
- Court of Appeals, 2008-NMCA-116: Reversed the district court, holding that only the tribal court had jurisdiction over the child custody matter (para 11).
Parties' Submissions
- Petitioner (Mother): Argued that the state court had jurisdiction under the Uniform Child-Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act (UCCJEA) and that the tribal court’s jurisdiction was not exclusive (paras 11-12, 15).
- Respondent (Father): Contended that the tribal court had exclusive jurisdiction over the custody matter, as the children were enrolled members of the Pueblo and lived on Pueblo lands (paras 9, 11, 15).
Legal Issues
- Does the state court have jurisdiction over the child custody dispute under the UCCJEA?
- Is the tribal court’s jurisdiction exclusive in this matter?
- How should state and tribal courts address concurrent jurisdiction in child custody disputes?
Disposition
- The Supreme Court of New Mexico reversed the Court of Appeals’ decision and remanded the case to the district court, holding that the state court has jurisdiction over the child custody matter, but this jurisdiction is concurrent with the tribal court (paras 11, 68).
Reasons
Per Bosson J. (Chávez CJ., Serna, Maes, and Daniels JJ. concurring):
State Court Jurisdiction: The UCCJEA governs jurisdiction in child custody matters and treats tribes as states. The state court has "significant connections" jurisdiction because the children and mother lived on non-Indian fee land for part of the relevant period, and the state court action was filed first. The tribal court does not have "home state" jurisdiction under the UCCJEA (paras 12-20, 35, 45).
Tribal Court Jurisdiction: The tribal court likely has jurisdiction based on the children’s enrollment in the Pueblo and their cultural significance to the tribe. However, this jurisdiction is not exclusive, as the UCCJEA does not preclude concurrent jurisdiction (paras 3, 15, 34).
Concurrent Jurisdiction and Comity: The Court emphasized the importance of comity between state and tribal courts to avoid conflicting orders and to prioritize the best interests of the children. Both courts should cooperate and respect each other’s jurisdiction (paras 3, 62-67).
Federal Statutes: The Parental Kidnapping Prevention Act (PKPA) does not apply to tribes, as Congress did not explicitly include tribes within its scope. Therefore, the PKPA does not mandate full faith and credit between state and tribal courts (paras 50-60).
Montana Precedent: The Court rejected the application of the "Indian country" paradigm under 18 U.S.C. § 1151 to determine jurisdiction in this civil matter, as the Montana line of cases limits tribal authority over non-Indians on non-Indian fee land (paras 23-33).
Best Interests of the Children: The district court must independently assess the children’s best interests in making custody determinations, even if consensus with the tribal court cannot be reached (para 67).