1 NICS App. 19, In the Matter of: J.R.H. (June 1988)

IN THE CHEHALIS TRIBAL COURT OF APPEALS

CHEHALIS INDIAN RESERVATION

OAKVILLE, WASHINGTON

In the Matter of: J.R.H. (Minor);

William P. Heck v. Lillian Swift

No. CHE JUV 4/87 -0032 (June 21, 1988)

SUMMARY

Trial and appellate courts have subject matter jurisdiction to hear child custody cases when tribal members and their children are involved. Where an award of custody of a child is appealed, the Court of Appeals will not disturb the order awarding custody where the trial court was generally in compliance with an ordinance requiring consideration of a child's best interests.

FULL TEXT

Before:	Hollis Chough; Rose Purser; Jack Fiander.
Appearances:	James M. Brown, Aberdeen, Washington for petitioner and Lynn Houser, Olympia, Washington for respondent.

FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW, AND JUDGMENT ORDER

This matter came before the Chehalis Court of Appeals; Honorable Judges, Hollis Chough, Rose Purser and Jack Fiander presiding on the 21st day of June, 1988, an appeal petition having been filed by the respondent, Lillian Swift.

Present for the hearing were William P. Heck, Natural Father, and member of the Chehalis Tribe, 453 Howanut Road, Oakville, Washington 98568 and James M. Brown, Attorney for William P. Heck, 525 Seattle First National Bank Building, Aberdeen, Washington 98520. Lillian Swift, Natural Mother, and member of the Quinault Tribe, Box 421, Taholah, Washington 98520, and Lynn Houser, Attorney for Lillian Swift, P.O. Box 10028, Olympia, WA.

The Respondent's petition sets forth seven (7) specific reasons for appealing the judgment entered on May 09, 1988, wherein custody of J.R.H., (a minor), was awarded to the natural father, William P. Heck.

The respondent's seven reasons for filing her appeal are based on the following:

1 NICS App. 19, William P. Heck v. Lillian Swift (June 1988) p. 20

life we have.

The Chehalis Tribal Appellate Court, in order to proceed with this case, reviewed the applicable tribal laws, rules and ordinances, and a determination as to how this case could be processed was completed. There are three major legal issues to be addressed in this case. These issues are as follows:

1.     Is this case in an appropriate tribal court?

2.     What tribal authorities are applicable in this case?

3.     Was the petitioner, Lillian Swift denied her day in Court?

The Chehalis Appeals Court determined that the Chehalis Tribe does have tribal remedy procedures to handle administration and judicial remedies in appropriate tribal offices or a tribal forum that the tribe may establish.

In the case of Heck v. Swift, the trial court and appeals court do have legal jurisdiction of the case and subject matter. The Court also has determined that the applicable tribal authorities are as follows:

1 NICS App. 19, William P. Heck v. Lillian Swift (June 1988) p. 21

AUTHORITY

The Chehalis Youth Ordinance 12, Sections for Judicial Officer and Appeals are vague in terms of established procedures to handle child custody cases. Chapter 12.06 PLACEMENT PREFERENCE, specifically outlines placement procedures for detention or custody and or placement of a child in need. The Chehalis Tribal Constitution and By-laws, under Article III., BILL OF RIGHTS, mandates that:

"Indians and non-Indians have the right to petition for action or redress of grievances and due process of law."

There appears to be no reasons why the courts should not require exhaustion of this case through the Chehalis tribal justice system. A general requirement in cases such as this, will do much to strengthen tribal courts and tribal government authority to handle problems within the various Indian communities throughout the country.

BACKGROUND

On May 9, 1988, the Chehalis Tribal Court convened for a child custody hearing. William P. Heck appeared and was represented by and through his attorney; Respondent, Lillian Swift and her attorney failed to appear. The court heard testimony and received evidence at the trial. The natural father William Heck testified to the following:

"J.R.H., minor, was being deprived of good home care, medical attention and schooling.

The natural mother continues to move from one location to another within various communities.

J.R.H. has been yelled at and threatened to be spanked for wanting to stay with her natural father.

The natural father requested legal custody of said minor, J.R.H. for health reasons and for her safety."

William Heck's testimony was supported by Dr. Kathleen Mayer's testimony regarding her evaluation and interviews with J.R.H. Dr. Mayer, Ph.d., Clinical Psychologist, in her testimony recommended placing J.R.H. with her natural father. Dr. Mayer further testified to the following, based on her professional interviews with the minor on two occasions:

“J.R.H. seems to be suffering some emotional problems and conflicts as a result of her mother, Lillian Swift."

Dr. Mayer concluded that the court needs to take immediate steps to ensure

1 NICS App. 19, William P. Heck v. Lillian Swift (June 1988) p. 22

the safety of J.R.H.. The Honorable Judge Frank LaFountaine entered an Order awarding legal custody of J.R.H. to the natural father.

APPEAL

The respondent, Lillian Swift, on May 13, 1988 filed a brief, formal letter requesting "change of judge" for her appeal hearing. On May 13, 1988, Lillian Swift made a telephone request for a "stay of execution" of the Order. She also advised court officials that she was filing an appeal.

FINDINGS

The Chehalis Tribal Appellate Court has jurisdiction over parties and subject matter herein.

On June 21, 1988, the Chehalis Appellate Court convened for hearing. The petitioner, William Heck and his attorney were present for the hearing. The respondent, Lillian Swift and her attorney were also present.

The Chehalis Appeals Court finds that the lower court did not state supporting legal authority in awarding minor child to natural father, William Heck.

It is the finding of the Appeals Court, that generally the trial court was in compliance with the Chehalis Tribal Youth Ordinance, (Chapter 12.06.020 Best Interest.)

The Appeals Court finds no reason to disturb the court order entered May 9, 1988 by the Honorable Judge Frank LaFountaine. The judgment is affirmed. However, the Appeals Court remands the case back to the trial court for further action.

OPINION

Based upon the foregoing, it is the order of this court that:

2.    Section V. William and Tanya Heck shall be responsible for all of J.R.H.'s medical and educational expenses, providing a good home environment, and her general well being.

1 NICS App. 19, William P. Heck v. Lillian Swift (June 1988) p. 23

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, that when Sections V. and VI. are included in the trial court's order of May 09, 1988, it should conclude this case.