840 N.W.2d 651
N.D.2013Background
- Child born 2003; maternal grandmother received custody from Standing Rock Sioux tribal court in July 2003.
- In January 2012 North Dakota sued B.B. in state court to adjudicate paternity, order future child support, and obtain reimbursement for public assistance paid to the custodial grandmother.
- At trial the district court found the child, mother, and grandmother were enrolled Standing Rock Sioux members living on the reservation; B.B. is non‑Indian, not a tribal member, and lived off the reservation.
- Genetic testing showed a 99.99% probability of paternity; the court adjudicated B.B. the father, ordered reimbursement to the State and continued child support until the child is eighteen.
- The district court held that tribal court retained jurisdiction over residential responsibility and parenting time, but the state court had subject matter jurisdiction over paternity and support.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether state court had subject‑matter jurisdiction over paternity and support after tribal custody order | State (plaintiff) argued it had jurisdiction to adjudicate paternity and recover public funds and to order support | B.B. argued state court lacked jurisdiction because tribal court had already determined custody and the parties (child, mother, grandmother) are tribal members residing on the reservation | State court has jurisdiction to decide paternity and support; tribal court does not have exclusive jurisdiction on these facts |
| Whether tribal sovereignty/exclusive tribal jurisdiction is infringed by state action | State argued its interest in reimbursement and child support does not infringe tribal self‑government when defendant is non‑Indian and relevant conduct occurred off reservation | B.B. argued state action infringes Standing Rock Sioux Tribe’s right of self‑government because custody was resolved in tribal court and parties are tribal members living on reservation | No infringement found; exercise of state jurisdiction here does not undermine tribal sovereignty |
| Whether conduct location controls exclusive tribal jurisdiction | State argued actions giving rise to paternity occurred off the reservation, supporting state jurisdiction | B.B. relied on decisions holding tribal courts exclusive when parties and conduct are on reservation | Court held that when conduct occurred off reservation and defendant is non‑Indian, state court may exercise jurisdiction |
| Whether custody determinations bar state adjudication of separate paternity/support claims (bifurcation) | State argued paternity/support are divisible from custody and may be bifurcated and adjudicated by state court | B.B. argued tribal custody decision implies continuing exclusive tribal jurisdiction over paternity/support | Court applied bifurcation principle (Kelly) and allowed state adjudication of paternity and support separate from tribal custody |
Key Cases Cited
- Williams v. Lee, 358 U.S. 217 (1959) (establishes infringement test limiting state jurisdiction when tribal self‑government would be undermined)
- Fisher v. District Court, 424 U.S. 382 (1976) (confirms tribal exclusivity where parties and conduct are on reservation)
- Roe v. Doe, 649 N.W.2d 566 (N.D. 2002) (North Dakota decision explaining when tribal courts have exclusive jurisdiction and when state courts may act)
- Kelly v. Kelly, 806 N.W.2d 133 (N.D. 2011) (recognizes bifurcation: custody can be tribal while other marital/incidental matters remain for state court)