Merrill v. Altman
807 N.W.2d 821
S.D.2011Background
- E.M.A. was born in 2001 to Natasha Merrill (a Sisseton-Wahpeton Oyate member) and Adam Altman (non-Native).
- In 2007 the South Dakota Circuit Court issued a custody order restricting Natasha’s relocation outside certain areas of South Dakota without court consent, and in 2008 required Natasha to follow relocation statutes SDCL 25-4A-17 to -19.
- Natasha died in 2010, and E.M.A. was with Natasha’s Mille Lacs Band-affiliated relatives on the Mille Lacs Reservation when the Merrills petitioned for guardianship in tribal court on April 12, 2010.
- Adam challenged the Mille Lacs Tribal Court’s jurisdiction, and the Tribal Court granted temporary custody to the Merrills pending guardianship proceedings and later awarded permanent guardianship to the Merrills on Sept. 7, 2010.
- The Merrills petitioned the Circuit Court in SD to recognize the Tribal Court’s guardianship order; the Circuit Court found the Tribal Court lacked jurisdiction and denied recognition on Feb. 28, 2011.
- The central issue on appeal is whether the SD Circuit Court erred in recognizing or denying recognition of the Tribal Court order under ICWA.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether ICWA exclusive jurisdiction rests with the Tribal Court | Merrills assert Tribal Court had exclusive ICWA jurisdiction over guardianship. | Altman contends SD court retains jurisdiction given prior SD orders and non-domicile/residence facts. | Tribal Court did not have exclusive ICWA jurisdiction. |
| Whether E.M.A. resided on the Mille Lacs Reservation | Residence on Mille Lacs would trigger exclusive tribal jurisdiction. | Residence did not occur; SD relocation orders controlled and were not violated for domicile. | E.M.A. did not reside on the Mille Lacs Reservation. |
| Whether recognizing the Tribal Court’s guardianship would violate SD court orders | Recognition would respect tribal order and protect guardianship rights. | Recognition would undermine existing SD court rulings and encourage forum-shopping. | Recognition would be inappropriate; SD orders remained controlling. |
Key Cases Cited
- Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians v. Holyfield, 490 U.S. 30 (1989) (dormant domicile framework for ICWA residence analysis)
- Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57 (U.S. Supreme Court 2000) (parental rights as backdrop for custody determinations)
- Chamblee v. Rose, 249 S.W.2d 775 (Ky. 1952) (custody decrees cannot transmute domicile for jurisdiction)
- In re J.D.M.C., 739 N.W.2d 796 (S.D. 2007) (common-law domicile framework applied to ICWA residence)
- In re A.L., 442 N.W.2d 233 (S.D. 1989) (interpretation of ICWA provisions using state-law concepts)