No. 13825
I N THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE O F MONTANA
1975
STATE OF MONTANA, ex re1 I N THE
MATTER OF THE ADOPTION OF IVAN
FIRECROW, a m i n o r by LEROY RUNSABOVE and
J O S E P H I N E RUNSABOVE,
Petitioners,
THE D I S T R I C T COURT OF THE SIXTEENTH J U D I C I A L
D I S T R I C T O F THE STATE OF MONTANA, I N AM) FOR
THE COUNTY OF ROSEBUD; and THE HONORABLE
ALFRED B e COATE, JUDGE THEREOF,
Respondents,
ORIGINAL PROCEEDING :
C o u n s e l of R e c o r d :
For P e t i t i o n e r s :
L e w i s E. B r u e g g e m a n n , argued, R i l l i r n g s , M o n t a n a
For R e s p o n d e n t s :
C l a r e n c e T. B e l u e argued, H a r d i n , Montana
Submitted: M a y 14, 1975
D e c i d e d : JUk
- 2
M r . J u s t i c e Wesley C a s t l e s d e l i v e r e d t h e Opinion of t h e Court.
T h i s i s a p e t i t i o n f o r a w r i t of s u p e r v i s o r y c o n t r o l o r
o t h e r a p p r o p r i a t e w r i t s e e k i n g r e l i e f from an o r d e r of t h e d i s -
t r i c t c o u r t of t h e s i x t e e n t h j u d i c i a l d i s t r i c t , Rosebud County,
which h e l d t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t had no j u r i s d i c t i o n i n t h i s adoption
proceeding and o r d e r e d t h e c a s e d i s m i s s e d .
O August 20, 1974, p e t i t i o n e r s Leroy and Josephine
n
Runsabove f i l e d i n t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t a p e t i t i o n f o r t h e a d o p t i o n
of Ivan Firecrow, a minor c h i l d , born May 1 0 , 1965. Consent t o
t h e a d o p t i o n and waiver of f u r t h e r n o t i c e , executed by t h e n a t u r a l
f a t h e r , was f i l e d w i t h t h e p e t i t i o n f o r a d o p t i o n . Petitioners,
t h e c h i l d , and t h e n a t u r a l mother a r e a l l e n r o l l e d members of t h e
Northern Cheyenne T r i b e and have r e s i d e d on t h e Northern Cheyenne
R e s e r v a t i o n a t a l l times p e r t i n e n t t o t h i s m a t t e r .
P r e v i o u s l y , on J u l y 1, 1969, Ivan Firecrow was made a
ward of t h e Northern Cheyenne T r i b a l Court upon a f i n d i n g t h a t
t h e n a t u r a l mother had n e g l e c t e d t h e c h i l d . A o r d e r was e n t e r e d
n
t h a t day g i v i n g p e t i t i o n e r s temporary custody of t h e c h i l d . They
have had custody of t h e c h i l d s i n c e t h a t time. O August 30, 1974,
n
t h e t r i b a l c o u r t o r d e r e d t h e n a t u r a l mother be g r a n t e d temporary
custody of t h e c h i l d f o r s i x weeks d u r i n g t h e summer months.
A r t i c l e 111, s e c t i o n 2 Revised Law and Order Ordinances
of t h e Northern Cheyenne T r i b e of t h e Northern Cheyenne R e s e r v a t i o n ,
reads, i n pertinent part:
"The T r i b a l Court of t h e Northern Cheyenne
R e s e r v a t i o n s h a l l have j u r i s d i c t i o n t o h e a r ,
p a s s upon, and approve a p p l i c a t i o n s f o r a d o p t i o n s
among members of t h e Northern Cheyenne T r i b e .
It
Upon proper showing and d e c i s i o n by t h e c o u r t ,
such a d o p t i o n s s h a l l be b i n d i n g upon a l l concerned
and h e r e a f t e r o n l y a d o p t i o n s s o approved by t h e
T r i b a l Court s h a l l be recognized."
The d i s t r i c t c o u r t h e l d a h e a r i n g upon t h e p e t i t i o n
f o r a d o p t i o n on October 11, 1974. Ivan was p r e s e n t a t t h e
h e a r i n g , having come from Oregon where he a t t e n d s s c h o o l under
t h e a u s p i c e s of t h e Morman Church, d u r i n g t h e s c h o o l y e a r . The
n a t u r a l mother o b j e c t e d t o t h e h e a r i n g a l l e g i n g t h e d i s t r i c t
c o u r t had no j u r i s d i c t i o n t o h e a r and g r a n t t h e p e t i t i o n f o r
adoption and, t h a t t h e m a t t e r was w i t h i n t h e e x c l u s i v e j u r i s -
d i c t i o n of t h e t r i b a l c o u r t . Following submission of b r i e f s on
t h e i s s u e of j u r i s d i c t i o n and r e c e i p t of an a d v i s o r y o p i n i o n from
t h e a p p e l l a t e c o u r t of t h e Northern Cheyenne T r i b e , t h e d i s t r i c t
c o u r t i s s u e d i t s o r d e r h o l d i n g t h a t i t had no j u r i s d i c t i o n o v e r
t h e a d o p t i o n and o r d e r e d t h e c a s e dismissed.
W a r e p r e s e n t e d w i t h a s i n g l e i s s u e f o r review:
e Whether,
upon t h e f a c t s o u t l i n e d above, t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t h a s s u b j e c t
m a t t e r j u r i s d i c t i o n over t h e i n s t a n t p e t i t i o n f o r a d o p t i o n ? We
h o l d i t does have such j u r i s d i c t i o n .
~ o n t a n a ' ss t a t u t e s r e g a r d i n g a d o p t i o n a r e i n Chapter 2,
T i t l e 61, R.C.M. 1947. S e c t i o n 61-202 r e a d s :
I1
Any c h i l d p r e s e n t w i t h i n t h i s s t a t e a t t h e t i m e
t h e p e t i t i o n f o r adoption i s f i l e d , i r r e s p e c t i v e
of p l a c e of b i r t h o r p l a c e of r e s i d e n c e , may be
adopted. I I
S e c t i o n 61-204 r e a d s :
"Proceedings f o r a d o p t i o n must be brought i n t h e
d i s t r i c t c o u r t of t h e county where t h e p e t i t i o n e r s
r e s i d e . II
The s t a t u t e s have been complied w i t h . Ivan was w i t h i n Montana,
a t home w i t h p e t i t i o n e r s d u r i n g summer v a c a t i o n when t h e p e t i t i o n
was f i l e d . P e t i t i o n e r s p l a c e of r e s i d e n c e i s t h e town o f Lame
Deer, county of Rosebud, s t a t e of Montana. While t h e r e s i d e n c e
of p e t i t i o n e r s and Ivan i s w i t h i n t h e e x t e r i o r b o u n d a r i e s of t h e
Northern Cheyenne R e s e r v a t i o n , t h a t r e s i d e n c e i s a l s o w i t h i n t h e
s t a t e of Montana. Organized V i l l a g e of Icake v. Egan, 369 U.S.
60, 82 S.Ct. 562, 7 L ed 2d 573.
The Northern Cheyenne T r i b e i s i n c o r p o r a t e d pursuant t o
t h e Wheeler-Howard Act, 25 U.S.C. $ 461 e t seq. It i s organized
and e x i s t i n g under a c o n s t i t u t i o n and by-laws r a t i f i e d by t h e
t r i b e on November 2, 1935, and approved by t h e S e c r e t a r y of t h e
I n t e r i o r on November 23, 1935. P r i o r t o t h a t time t h e c o u r t s of
t h i s s t a t e had j u r i s d i c t i o n over adoption m a t t e r s i n v o l v i n g
Indians. S t a t e ex r e l . I r o n Bear v. D i s t r i c t Court, 162 Mont. 335,
512 P.2d 1292; Bad Horse v. Bad Horse, 163 Mont. 445, 517 P.2d
893, 31 St.Rep'. 22.
The j u r i s d i c t i o n of t h e c o u r t s of t h e s t a t e of Montana
i s n o t d i v e s t e d by t h e subsequent, u n i l a t e r a l a c t i o n of t h e
Northern Cheyenne T r i b e i n e n a c t i n g A r t i c l e 111, s e c t i o n 2, of
i t s Revised Law and Order Ordinances, h e r e t o f o r e quoted.
Assuming t h a t t h e t r i b a l c o u r t has j u r i s d i c t i o n over adoptions i n -
volving I n d i a n s , i t i s a j u r i s d i c t i o n concurrent w i t h t h a t of t h e
d i s t r i c t court. It i s n o t an e x c l u s i v e j u r i s d i c t i o n . The United
S t a t e s Congress has i m p l i c i t l y recognized t h a t s t a t e c o u r t s have
concurrent j u r i s d i c t i o n over adoptions involving I n d i a n s i n 25
U.S.C. § 372a. The d i s t r i c t c o u r t having always had j u r i s d i c -
t i o n over adoptions i n v o l v i n g I n d i a n s , 25 U.S.C. 5 1322 i s n o t
applicable.
This Court i n Bad Horse v. Bad Horse, 163 Mont. 445, 517
P.2d 893, 895, 3 1 St.R.ep. 22, 25, s t a t e d :
" ~ n r o l l e dmembers of Indian t r i b e s w i t h i n Montana
a r e c i t i z e n s of t h e United S t a t e s and c i t i z e n s of
t h e s t a t e of Montana. A I n d i a n i s e n t i t l e d , a s
n
any o t h e r c i t i z e n , t o b r i n g an a c t i o n i n t h e c o u r t s
of t h i s s t a t e . A r t . 111, Sec. 6, of t h e 1889 Montana
C o n s t i t u t i o n (Art. 11, Sec. 16 of t h e 1972 Montana
C o n s t i t u t i o n ) ; S e c t i o n 83-102, R.C.M. 1947; Bonnet
v. Seekins, 126 Mont. 24, 243 P.2d 317."
Compare McCrea v. Busch, 164 Mont. 442, 524 P.2d 781, 31 St.Rep.
551, where an Indian sued a non-Indian i n a s t a t e c o u r t f o r damages
a r i s i n g out of an a c c i d e n t on a r e s e r v a t i o n .
Being c i t i z e n s of t h e s t a t e o f liontana, p e t i t i o n e r s
and Ivan a r e e n t i t l e d t o t h e e q u a l p r o t e c t i o n of t h e laws.
A r t i c l e 11, S e c t i o n 4 , 1972 Montana C o n s t i t u t i o n . Petitioners
a r e e n t i t l e d t o t h e u s e of Montana's c o u r t system on a p a r w i t h
o t h e r Montana c i t i z e n s r e g a r d l e s s of t h e f a c t t h a t t h e y a r e en-
r o l l e d members of an I n d i a n t r i b e and r e s i d e w i t h i n t h e e x t e r i o r
boundaries of t h a t I n d i a n r e s e r v a t i o n . P e t i t i o n e r s and Ivan
a r e e n t i t l e d t o t h e b e n e f i t of Montana's a d o p t i o n s t a t u t e s , a s a r e
a l l Montana c i t i z e n s , r e g a r d l e s s of t h e f a c t t h e y a r e e n r o l l e d
members of an I n d i a n t r i b e and r e s i d e w i t h i n t h e e x t e r i o r b o u n d a r i e s
of t h a t Indian reservation. To hold t h a t t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t does
n o t have s u b j e c t m a t t e r j u r i s d i c t i o n over t h i s c o n t r o v e r s y would
be t o d e p r i v e p e t i t i o n e r s and Ivan of t h e s e r i g h t s of c i t i z e n s h i p .
I t would make them something l e s s than f u l l c i t i z e n s .
The o r d e r of t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t i s r e v e r s e d and t h e m a t t e r
i s remanded f o r f u r t h e r proceedings c o n s i s t e n t w i t h t h i s opinion.
/ /\chief Justice
/ Justices. P