Native Village of Chignik Lagoon v. State of Alaska, Department of Health & Social Services, Office of Children's Services, and Native Village of Wales
518 P.3d 708
Alaska2022Background
- Trent, born July 2018, tested positive for opiates and was placed with foster parents David and Darla Dunn (who have family ties to Chignik Lagoon).
- Wales participated throughout the CINA proceedings, attended many hearings, and later enrolled Trent as a Wales member; Wales petitioned to transfer post‑termination proceedings to its tribal court after parental rights were terminated.
- Chignik Lagoon moved to intervene and challenged the transfer, asserting Trent was eligible for Chignik Lagoon membership and arguing the transfer to Wales was improper.
- The superior court found (1) under 25 C.F.R. § 23.108 it must defer to tribal membership determinations, (2) Trent is a Wales member, and (3) Wales is Trent’s tribe for ICWA purposes; the court ordered transfer to Wales’s tribal court.
- The Alaska Supreme Court affirmed: it held state courts must defer to tribal membership determinations, interpreted ICWA’s definition of “Indian child” to require the parent’s tribal membership and child’s eligibility to be within the same tribe for § 1903(4)(b), and concluded Chignik Lagoon lacked standing to challenge the transfer.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a state court may review or override a tribe’s membership/eligibility determination under 25 C.F.R. § 23.108 | Chignik Lagoon: State court may invalidate a tribe’s membership determination if inconsistent with tribal or federal law | Wales/State: Regulation defers exclusively to tribes; state courts may not substitute their judgment | Court: Defer to tribe—state court may not substitute its own membership determination absent federal or tribal law authorizing review |
| Which tribe is the child’s “Indian child’s tribe” under ICWA when child is member of one tribe and eligible for another | Chignik Lagoon: Child is eligible for Chignik Lagoon; Chignik should be designated | Wales/State: Child is a Wales member; Wales is the child’s tribe (and the only tribe meeting ICWA definition) | Court: Child is a Wales member; Wales is the child’s tribe for ICWA purposes |
| Interpretation of 25 U.S.C. § 1903(4)(b): whether the child may be eligible in one tribe while the biological parent is member of another | Chignik Lagoon: §1903(4)(b) can be satisfied if child is eligible in one tribe and parent is member of a different tribe | Wales/State: The parent’s membership and the child’s eligibility must refer to the same tribe | Court: §1903(4)(b) requires the child’s eligibility and the parent’s membership to be in the same tribe; Trent does not qualify under (b) for Chignik Lagoon |
| Whether Chignik Lagoon has standing to challenge transfer of post‑termination proceedings to Wales’s tribal court | Chignik Lagoon: As intervenor and on parens patriae/ICWA enforcement grounds, it has standing and a personal stake in keeping the child with foster family | Wales/State: Chignik lacks adversity and suffered no cognizable injury once child is a Wales member | Court: Chignik Lagoon lacks standing to challenge the transfer given the child is a Wales member and other factual limitations; its challenges to transfer were dismissed |
Key Cases Cited
- Starr v. George, 175 P.3d 50 (Alaska 2008) (ICWA applies only to specified child‑custody proceedings)
- State v. Native Village of Tanana, 249 P.3d 734 (Alaska 2011) (scope of tribal jurisdiction reviewed de novo)
- John v. Baker, 982 P.2d 738 (Alaska 1999) (tribal authority to determine membership is an internal sovereign power)
- Montana v. United States, 450 U.S. 544 (U.S. 1981) (recognition of tribes’ retained sovereign powers)
- Santa Clara Pueblo v. Martinez, 436 U.S. 49 (U.S. 1978) (tribal sovereignty and noninterference in internal tribal matters)