5 NICS App. 81, IN RE THE MATTER OF LOZIER-HOPE (July 1998)

IN THE MUCKLESHOOT TRIBAL COURT OF APPEALS

MUCKLESHOOT INDIAN RESERVATION

AUBURN, WASHINGTON

In Re: The Matter of Cynthia Lozier-Hope

No. C-96-048 (July 31, 1998)

SUMMARY

Appellant Cynthia Lozier-Hope appeals an order from the trial court removing her as a volunteer guardian ad litem and probation officer for the Muckleshoot Tribal Court. The Court of Appeals finds that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in removing Appellant from serving as a volunteer guardian ad litem and probation officer on grounds of disrespectful courtroom behavior, nor did the trial court abuse its discretion for conditioning Appellant’s appearance as spokesperson upon satisfaction of certain requirements.

FULL TEXT

Before:            Lorintha Warwick, Chief Justice; Larry King, Justice; and Robert McCarthy, Justice.

Appearance:    Cynthia Lozier-Hope, Appellant, pro se.

This matter came before the Muckleshoot Tribal Court of Appeals pursuant to Cynthia Lozier-Hope’s Notice of Appeal filed on December 22, 1997. Ms. Lozier-Hope appeals from an order of the trial court removing her as a volunteer guardian ad litem and probation officer for the Muckleshoot Tribal Court.

I. NATURE OF ACTION

On December 16, 1997, the Muckleshoot tribal judge entered an order against Appellant, a member of the Muckleshoot Tribe, which order set forth certain requirements that needed to be met before the Appellant could appear as either a guardian ad litem or a probation officer. The Appellant argues that the requirements are unwarranted and discriminatory and, therefore, asks the Court to invalidate the order.

II. JURISDICTION

This Court has personal jurisdiction over Appellant because she is a member of the Muckleshoot Indian Tribe. The act which is the subject of this appeal occurred within the exterior

5 NICS App. 81, IN RE THE MATTER OF LOZIER-HOPE (July 1998) p. 82

boundaries of the Muckleshoot Indian Reservation, giving rise to territorial jurisdiction. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this matter pursuant to §1.02.01 of the Muckleshoot Tribal Code.

III. ISSUE

The sole issue on appeal is whether the trial court abused its discretion in removing Appellant from serving as a volunteer guardian ad litem and probation officer, on grounds of disrespectful courtroom behavior, and conditioning her appearance as spokesperson upon satisfaction of certain requirements.

IV. HOLDING

Upon review of the arguments of the Appellant, letters from the trial judge, and the record we now conclude that the trial judge exercised sound discretion. We therefore affirm the order with the following comments:

Once a spokesperson has been properly authorized to practice in tribal court, he or she is bound by the tribal laws and the Rules of Court. It is the judge’s duty to insure that laws and rules are followed in court. The judge, however, does not have the full discretion to remove a spokesperson from a particular case while the case is still active unless the spokesperson’s actions are so violative of courtroom decorum as to jeopardize the integrity of the proceeding. The judge must balance a party’s right to a spokesperson of her choice, against the need to insure dignity and legality of the process. The trial court judge, under Muckleshoot law, has the authority to disallow a spokesperson from appearing, but this authority is potentially subject to review.

The trial judge in this case merely outlined certain requirements that the Appellant must meet before she can again appear as a probation officer or guardian ad litem. The order does not prohibit Appellant’s appearance as a spokesperson as long as the Appellant is otherwise qualified and as long as Appellant does not exceed her boundaries while serving in that capacity.

The December 22, 1997 order is valid and therefore is affirmed.