915 N.W.2d 115
N.D.2018Background
- In Jan 2009 the Turtle Mountain Tribal Court found Daniel Peltier was the biological father of a child born on the Turtle Mountain Reservation; that order did not address child support.
- The State, after receiving public assistance assigned by the mother, filed for child support in North Dakota state district court; Peltier did not initially appear and a 2009 state judgment set support at $330/month, later amended to $606/month in 2014.
- Peltier was found in contempt in 2016 for failing to pay and ordered jailed unless he purged contempt by paying $606/month.
- Peltier moved (first pro se, later with counsel) to dismiss or for relief under N.D.R.Civ.P. 60(b)(4), arguing lack of state subject matter jurisdiction because the Turtle Mountain Tribal Court had exclusive jurisdiction.
- The district court concluded, relying on Roe v. Doe and related precedent, that it had concurrent jurisdiction because the parties are enrolled members of other tribes (or eligible) and are therefore nonmember Indians for Turtle Mountain jurisdictional purposes; the court denied relief.
- The North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed, holding state jurisdiction over the child support obligation did not infringe tribal self-government and the prior state judgment was not void.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the state district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over child support because Turtle Mountain Tribal Court has exclusive jurisdiction | Peltier: tribal court has exclusive jurisdiction over controversies on the Reservation involving tribal members and nonmembers; parties are subject to Turtle Mountain jurisdiction, so state judgment is void | State: after paternity was decided and no tribal child-support order existed, state court has concurrent jurisdiction to establish child support against a nonmember Indian living on the Reservation | Court held state court had concurrent jurisdiction; Peltier failed to show the state action infringed tribal self-government and judgment was not void |
| Whether prior state judgment must be vacated under N.D.R.Civ.P. 60(b)(4) for lack of subject matter jurisdiction | Peltier: prior state judgment is void because state lacked subject matter jurisdiction | State: judgment valid because state had concurrent jurisdiction and significant state interest (reimbursement for public assistance) | Court held 60(b)(4) relief not warranted because jurisdictional facts support state jurisdiction; prior judgment remains valid |
Key Cases Cited
- Williams v. Lee, 358 U.S. 217 (U.S. 1959) (establishes infringement test for state jurisdiction vs. tribal sovereignty)
- Fisher v. District Court, 424 U.S. 382 (U.S. 1976) (limits on state jurisdiction over reservation matters and tribes)
- Roe v. Doe, 649 N.W.2d 566 (N.D. 2002) (North Dakota precedent on tribal/state jurisdiction in paternity/child support cases; nonmember Indians treated like non‑Indians for tribal jurisdiction)
- McKenzie County Social Servs. Bd. v. C.G., 633 N.W.2d 157 (N.D. 2001) (tribal exclusivity over parentage in some circumstances analyzed under infringement test)
- State v. B.B., 840 N.W.2d 651 (N.D. 2013) (standard of review for jurisdictional facts in child custody/support matters)