AI Generated Opinion Summaries

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 a divorce between the Petitioner-Appellee and the Respondent-Appellant, who is a member of the Pueblo of Pojoaque. During their marriage, the couple and their two children primarily lived on the Pueblo. The Petitioner left the Respondent due to physical abuse, taking the children to her father’s house, which is on fee land within the Pueblo’s boundaries. The Respondent later engaged in a violent altercation at the father’s house, leading to his arrest (paras 2-3).

Procedural History

• First Judicial District Court, August 26, 2002: Issued a temporary order of protection and awarded temporary custody of the children to the Petitioner (para 3).
• First Judicial District Court, September 30, 2005: Entered a divorce decree, resolving property, debts, and child support issues but not child custody (para 4).
• Tribal Court, April 26, 2004: Awarded joint legal custody of the children to both parties (para 4).

Parties' Submissions

• Appellant (Respondent): Argued that the district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over the divorce and custody issues under state law and federal Indian law. He contended that the tribal court had exclusive jurisdiction over the custody dispute (paras 1, 5).
• Appellee (Petitioner): Asserted that the district court had jurisdiction over the divorce and custody issues, arguing that the fee land within the Pueblo’s boundaries should be treated as state land for jurisdictional purposes (paras 12, 20).

Legal Issues

• Did the district court have jurisdiction under state law to dissolve the marriage and resolve non-custody issues?
• Did the district court have jurisdiction under the Uniform Child-Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act (UCCJEA) to decide child custody matters?
• Did the district court’s exercise of jurisdiction infringe on tribal sovereignty under federal Indian law?
• Does the federal Parental Kidnapping Prevention Act (PKPA) preempt the UCCJEA in this case?

Disposition

• The district court had jurisdiction to resolve non-custody issues related to the dissolution of marriage (para 17).
• The district court lacked jurisdiction to decide child custody matters under the UCCJEA, as the Pueblo was the children’s home state (para 23).
• The case was remanded to dismiss the custody claims (para 29).

Reasons

Per Robinson J. (Bustamante and Fry JJ. concurring):

• Jurisdiction Over Non-Custody Issues: The district court had jurisdiction under NMSA 1978, Section 40-4-5, as both parties resided in New Mexico for six months before filing. Tribal lands within state boundaries are considered part of the state for jurisdictional purposes. The court’s jurisdiction over non-custody matters did not infringe on tribal sovereignty, as established in Lonewolf v. Lonewolf (paras 7-17).

• Jurisdiction Over Custody Issues: Under the UCCJEA, the Pueblo was the children’s home state because they lived within its boundaries for six months before the case was filed. Fee land within a Pueblo’s boundaries is part of the tribe for UCCJEA purposes, consistent with the definition of Indian country under 18 U.S.C. § 1151. The district court erred in assuming jurisdiction over custody matters (paras 18-23).

• PKPA Preemption: The PKPA treats tribes as states or territories for jurisdictional purposes. Since the district court lacked jurisdiction under state law, the PKPA did not require the tribal court to defer to the district court (paras 27-28).

• Remand: The court affirmed the district court’s rulings on non-custody issues but reversed its custody determinations, remanding the case to dismiss custody claims (para 29).