This summary was computer-generated without any editorial revision. It is not official, has not been checked for accuracy, and is NOT citable.
Facts
The case involves abuse and neglect proceedings concerning twin children, Megan S. and Randi S. The twins were placed in foster care after a neglect petition was filed in 1988. Their grandfather, Raymond Spear, sought custody under the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA), which prioritizes placement with extended family. However, the children's court denied the placement, and the twins remained in foster care. During a visit to Oklahoma, Spear's wife obtained an ex parte emergency custody order from the Cherokee tribal court, leading to a jurisdictional dispute between the New Mexico children's court and the tribal court (paras 3-8).
Procedural History
- Children's Court, 1988: Legal and physical custody of the twins was granted to the New Mexico Human Services Department (para 3).
- Children's Court, 1990: The twins were placed with a second foster family, and the mother appealed the dispositional order (para 3).
- Court of Appeals, 1990: Remanded the case to determine the applicability of the ICWA (para 4).
- Children's Court, 1990: Determined the ICWA did not apply (para 4).
- Court of Appeals, 1990: Reversed the children's court's determination, finding the ICWA applicable (para 4).
- New Mexico Supreme Court, 1992: Denied a habeas corpus petition filed by Spear and the Cherokee Tribe challenging the children's court's refusal to place the twins with Spear (para 6).
- Federal Court, 1994: Determined that removal to federal court was inappropriate and remanded the case to the children's court (para 9).
Parties' Submissions
- Appellant (Raymond Spear): Argued that the children's court lacked jurisdiction due to the ICWA, the expiration of the custody order, and the tribal court's dismissal of the New Mexico proceedings. He also claimed an inability to comply with the children's court's order due to the tribal court's custody orders (paras 2, 12, 17-19, 23-24, 28, 33).
- Respondents (Children's Court and Foster Family): Contended that the children's court retained jurisdiction and that Spear's actions, including his involvement in the tribal court proceedings, undermined his defense of inability to comply (paras 2, 33-37).
Legal Issues
- Did the children's court have jurisdiction to issue the contempt order?
- Was Spear's defense of inability to comply with the children's court's order valid?
- Were the contempt sanctions imposed by the children's court appropriate?
- Should the Cherokee tribal court's orders be recognized under the ICWA or other legal principles?
Disposition
- The $25,000 compensatory fine imposed by the children's court was affirmed (para 51).
- The $1,500 per day coercive fine was reversed (para 51).
Reasons
Per Rudy S. Apodaca, Chief Judge (Bosson and Bustamante JJ. concurring):
Jurisdiction: The children's court retained jurisdiction over the case despite the ICWA and the expiration of the custody order. Jurisdiction is established at the time of filing and is not voided by subsequent events, such as a change in domicile or the tribal court's dismissal of the New Mexico proceedings (paras 19-26).
Defense of Inability to Comply: The court distinguished between compensatory and coercive sanctions. While Spear's inability to comply was not a defense to the $25,000 compensatory fine, it was a valid defense to the $1,500 per day coercive fine, as compliance would have required illegal actions like kidnapping the twins (paras 28-39).
Contempt Sanctions: The $25,000 fine was deemed appropriate to address the harm caused by Spear's actions, which necessitated legal efforts to enforce the children's court's jurisdiction. The coercive fine, however, was reversed due to Spear's demonstrated inability to comply (paras 40-44).
Recognition of Tribal Court Orders: The tribal court's orders did not divest the children's court of jurisdiction or invalidate its prior orders. The children's court's authority to impose sanctions for disobedience of its orders remained intact (paras 46-48).
Other Issues: The court rejected Spear's arguments regarding the children's court's alleged failure to follow appellate mandates and the tribal court's purported discharge of the twins' attorneys, affirming the children's court's authority in these matters (paras 49-50).