IN THE MATTER OF S.J.W., 535 P.3d 1235

Child S.J.W. (Muscogee (Creek) Nation member) born March 16, 2020 and taken into state custody March 18, 2020; Carter County (where the child resided) lies entirely within the Chickasaw Nation reservation.
State filed deprived petition; adjudicatory proceedings occurred across mid-2020 to Feb. 12, 2021 after continuances and multiple hearing dates.
After adjudication the parents appealed; the child (through counsel) moved to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, arguing Chickasaw exclusive jurisdiction under ICWA §1911(a) in light of McGirt/Bosse.
Parents also claimed the adjudication exceeded the 180-day statutory limit (10A O.S. §1-4-601(B)(2)) and thus violated due process.
COVID-19 emergency tolling orders affected statutory deadlines; parents participated in proceedings and did not timely renew their dismissal objection until final testimony day.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Oklahoma courts lack subject-matter jurisdiction because the case arose in Chickasaw reservation	Parents / child: Chickasaw has exclusive jurisdiction under 25 U.S.C. §1911(a) because Carter County is within Chickasaw reservation	State: §1911(a) grants exclusivity to the child’s own tribe when the child is domiciled in that tribe’s reservation; here the child is Creek and not domiciled on the Creek reservation, so §1911(b) permits concurrent state/tribal jurisdiction	Court: State district court had subject-matter jurisdiction; §1911 addresses territorial/transfer rules (forum connection), not an automatic ouster of state subject-matter jurisdiction; §1911(b) governs and concurrent jurisdiction applies
Whether delay in holding adjudicatory hearing violated parents’ due process rights (10A O.S. §1-4-601(B)(2))	Parents: Adjudication exceeded 180 days after removal and court should have dismissed for statutory/due process violation	State: COVID tolling applied, parents requested/accepted continuances and participated; objection to delay was not timely renewed; delay was not arbitrary or shocking	Court: No due process violation; emergency tolling and parents’ continued participation foreclosed dismissal and the delay was not arbitrary/oppressive

McGirt v. Oklahoma, 140 S. Ct. 2452 (U.S. 2020) (recognized Creek reservation boundaries; prompted tribal-territory jurisdictional analysis)
Bosse v. Oklahoma, 499 P.3d 771 (Okla. Crim. App. 2021) (held Chickasaw reservation not disestablished)
Miss. Band of Choctaw Indians v. Holyfield, 490 U.S. 30 (U.S. 1989) (explains ICWA dual-jurisdiction scheme and domicile focus)
Oklahoma v. Castro-Huerta, 142 S. Ct. 2486 (U.S. 2022) (states retain jurisdiction over territory that includes Indian country, subject to federal law)
Montana v. United States, 450 U.S. 544 (U.S. 1981) (describes the scope and limits of tribal sovereignty)
Flandermeyer v. Bonner, 152 P.3d 195 (Okla. 2006) (due-process standard: meaningful opportunity to defend; delay must be arbitrary/oppressive to violate due process)
In re A.M., 13 P.3d 484 (Okla. 2000) (procedural due process in parental-rights proceedings; case-by-case analysis of required process)