A Juneau Superior Court judge issued a ruling earlier this week that granted Tlingit and Haida Alaskan tribal courts jurisdiction to adjudicate child support for children who are members of the tribe.
Central Council of Tlingit and Haida Indian Tribes of Alaska, the plaintiffs in the case against the state, heralded the ruling as a victory in reaffirming the tribe’s authority to handle its own family law cases.
“The Court’s order reaffirms the Tribe’s inherent jurisdiction to handle the full range of family law issues affecting its citizens, including the particular issue of child support for the benefit of tribal children,” a recent statement from the group read.
The tribe, which was represented by Alaska Legal Services Corporation attorney Holly Handler, said the case was brought forth because the state of Alaska failed to honor tribal court support orders issued under the Central Council’s Family Responsibility statute and federally recognized Tribal Child Support Program.
“As the lack of interagency cooperation negatively impacted families with tribal support orders, the tribe was left with little choice but to file suit seeking relief requiring the state of Alaska to recognize tribal child support orders under recognized principles of tribal sovereignty and Alaska’s own Uniform Interstate Family Support Act,” the statement read.
In a summary of the case, the Superior Court Judge Philip Pallenberg delineated a long history of “practical complications (that) are inevitable with system dual sovereignty.”
In 1996, states were required to adopt the Uniform Interstate Family Support Act that recognizes child support orders from other states — “states” being the key word. The UIFSA included tribes within the definition of states, but when Alaska adopted UIFSA in 1997, it dropped the language including tribes.
When Congress passed the law that encompassed UIFSA in 1996, it was required to enact the official version of UIFSA, which includes the Native tribe’s language in its definition of “states.”
The state of Alaska twice asked for an exception from that requirement in 2008, but was rejected both times by the federal Department of Health and Human Services. The state was also warned the second time that failure to comply with the language risked loss of more than $60 million in federal funds for needy children and families.
The Alaska Legislature amended UIFSA in 2009 to reflect the official definition of “states” that includes the tribal language, Pallenberg wrote, as they were faced with that threat.
The Legislature’s intent was made clear in the amendment, however.
“In adopting UIFSA conforming amendments, the legislative intent is 1) to remain neutral on the issue of the underlying child support jurisdiction ... 2) not to expand or restrict the child support jurisdiction ... and 3) not to assume or express any opinion about whether those entities have child support jurisdiction in fact or in law,” the text of the amendment read.
The state in its argument pointed out that UIFSA does not confer jurisdiction on tribal courts — it only requires recognition of tribal court support orders if the tribal court has jurisdiction.
Which begs the question, “Does the Tlingit and Haida tribal court have jurisdiction to enter child support orders concerning children who are tribal members?”
Pallenberg said yes, based on a previous Alaska Supreme Court case that found tribes have jurisdiction over custody determinations.
“I conclude that this jurisdiction, to be meaningful, must extend to adjudication of child support,” he wrote.
He elaborated, “ In my view, (the Supreme Court case) John v. Baker confers jurisdiction on the tribal court to decide both custody and support. The tribal court does not forfeit its jurisdiction merely because it chooses not to decide issues of custody.”
Pallenberg said he would issue an injunction requiring the state of Alaska, Child Support Services Department to comply with UIFSA and applicable federal and state regulations.
After the ruling was issued, the president of the Central Council of Tlingit and Haida Indian Tribes of Alaska, Edward Thomas, said, “This is a very important court ruling for our tribe’s children. We will make every effort to work with the state of Alaska in carrying out our responsibilities to our Native families.”
Comments (57)
Add commentjurisdiction
It is about time. It is telling that this one remainder of Jim Crow in Alaska had to be fought in the courts to be abolished. Of course Tribal courts should have jurisdiction over their children. Now they should also have jurisdiction over white parents who have fathered or mothered Native children, after all, all actions should favor the child.
All actions schould favor the child
So why should native tribes have Jurisdiction over a half native childs support order? To favor the child I would say give it to the one with the highest support order, and then hand over the order to the agency with the highest ability to aggressively collect the child support.
I am amazed how people think
I am amazed how people think we are all created equal in this country...Alaska Natives are not. Especially, when the State of Alaska doesn't today recognized Tribes nor Indian Country.
Inherent jurisdiction, I call it inherent rights of Tribe's in Alaska to have jurisdiction over our children. Far as Child Support problems? It is our problem and not your problem.
I am amazed that Non-Native people think that we are inferior people and we can't take care of ourselves in todays world.
Tribal Courts work.
I am proud of Tlingit and Haida Central Council, Gunalcheesch, I am feeling very indigenous today.
Not really sure how to view
Not really sure how to view the previous comment. So your not created equal to everyone else. You need your own court system. You claim that everyone thinks you are inferior, but that you should be autonomous and have Native Country and Native Courts. Seems to me like you have serious self esteem issues yet think every one should give you your own country to run. This is a country where everyone is equal under the law. It doesnt matter if a child is native, norwegian, black or a complete mutt. The law SHOULD be the same no matter what. If it is not, then work to correct the system. Can you imagine the mess if every group in the US demanded their own legal system? The Irish courts, the Norwegian courts, etc. MLK didnt fight for a seperate black court system. He demanded to be a part of the country and have the laws equally applied to blacks as they were to everyone else.
kpawsuh
The wrongs of the past do not justify the position of the present. Clearly, Natives never legally gave up their sovereign status. They are a nation and as such need to be treated on a nation to nation basis. Kapawsuh, you want to take a stab at justifying your position based on Neapolitantic Law, the right of the conqueror, on people who were never conquered? Yours is a house built on sand. Comparing every other nationally or race is a false argument.
alaskaguy
Why then do you pay taxes? Submit to federal laws and courts? Use a U.S. passport to re-enter the country? Call yourself an American?
A citizen of a sovereign nation would never acquiesce to these things. Where do the claims to sovereignty end?
The blacks were brought here
The blacks were brought here against their will, yet they are Americans.
I agree Latitude. You want to be a sovereign nation, then the gravy train stops at the border
What a bigot
kpawsuh, once again you show what a bigot you are.
There is no "gravy train". There are, however, treaty rights to certain benefits as a result of ANCSA, which was enacted to compensate Alaska Natives for the loss of the land which was taken from them, since the only part of Alaska that the Russians owned were parts of Kodiak and Sitka which were purchased.
The land issues, however, are separate from the tribal court jurisdiction question.
Unfortunately, the anti-sovereignty racists in state government are still fighting against the rights retained by Alaska tribes under ANCSA, the Indian Child Welfare Act, and other Federal law. Remember that our Constitution reserves the right to legislate & negotiate matters regarding Native Americans to the Federal government. It's time that state governments from Alaska to South Dakota (which kidnaps Lakota children and puts them in white foster homes, contrary to Federal law!) obey this Constitutional requirement.
Curmudgeon, you once again
Curmudgeon, you once again prove that your head is in the sand. No gravy train? How many government contracts do the native corps get? Who pays for the schools, roads, post offices, food stamps, BIA, my god the list goes on forever. That sounds an awful lot like a gravy train. Its certainly not limited to Natives, though. My thought is if you want to be a Sovereign nation, stop taking the money.
And actually, I am being the anti-bigot. The previous commentor is claiming that the Natives should be taking care of Native issues, need Native courts etc. Should we go back to Native only restaurants, bathrooms, bus seats? Are you advocating segregation? Or are we all Americans with equal rights under the Constitution?
kpawsuh miss the point or ignore it
Natives earned the benefits through a contract with the federal government, just as a military veteran has earned their benefits promised as compensation for their service. Natives never gave up the right to administer there own people.
huh
until they run out of timber, or subsistence, or money, or decide that they deserve more because the guy that worked hard and saved his pennies and bought a bigger house than them or a bigger boat is somehow keeping them down. then they cry to the government that they got a raw deal and need new land but are willing to give back a 3rd of the land they have already destroyed in exchange because that is the fair thing to do.
what happens when a native guy produces a child with a non-native and he refuses to pay does she take him to tribal court or US court and what happens when the tribal court says she is not one of us so he doesn't have to pay. what if a non-native guy produces a child with a native gal and the tribal court decides she should have 80% of his pay?
this is ridiculous natives don’t deserve anything more than anybody else and this whole "we were wronged so long ago and now you need to pay is crap"!!!
Taxes...LOL
It may come to a surprise to the whole world of the UN enlighten. We as natives control a good percentage of the State Capitals monies flowing through the community. Not counting the federal monies nor counting the funds allocated by the state, just monies earned and put out there by Native owned business. Yes, we pay taxes, just like everyone else. Sovereignty is a God - given right not a government one. My taxes exceed the national average by more than a few points, my credit history is 749, hmm, and maybe I should quit using cash and charge something. 1% of America is a cry heard as a stampede roaring through our Nation for a long time. Do we need to occupy our places of birthright so we can have something to pass on? Come-on, it’s not that we don’t pay we coexist to remain just like everyone else. No, I do not have a problem of being Tlingit and what you think does not matter to me as a person. I help out where I can and I believe when we work together as one we move forward…
agree with kpawsuh on this one....
you can't have your cake and eat it too.
If you want to have your own laws and be 'soveriegn' then you should also pay for your own services.
If you selected land based on a contract, you should utilize that land to the best of your ability, not trash it and then want to trade it for more, better land.
I know many fine Alaska Native people. But as a whole, it's time to stop the whole "separate and more equal" status. I believe it actually hurts the native people to think they are somehow always, and forever, 'owed' something, then something more, etc. etc.
molluskgirl
Besides confusing Tribal Court with Sealaska land selections, I would like to be there when you go to collect your social security that you did not pay for and find that the contract was broken. or the retirement fund your company used as a negotiating tool to keep you working for them was never funded. The collective of us that is the US government promised to respect the National rights of our Natives. We recognized the need to try to get it right and hold ourselves to a higher standard. It cannot ethically be broken just because you are a few generations removed. It was not nor ever was more. It was about keeping the promise. And unless you have that squids ability to change colors, you will never get it.
If murder doesn't have a
If murder doesn't have a statute of limitation, neither should genocide. The native peoples of the Americas were wronged repeatedly over the last 519 years, and they deserve more than a mere pittance. It's easy to say, "get over it" when you aren't the one who has anything to get over.
I know most white people don't have the strong cultural ties that many Native Americans do (unless you count the ambiguous "American" moniker), but try to imagine what it's like to have this long tribal and familial history suddenly come to a grinding halt, not being able to fit in with society at large because you know that this very society led to the end of your family's. This wasn't some European-style conflict where the average English person wasn't impacted so much by the murder of a king or the displacement a monarchy; this was the destruction of an entire culture down to the individual level, often organized as such by our own government.
Maybe the opinions expressed above aren't the best way to go about fixing things. But saying there's nothing that needs fixing is just ignorant.
So Alaska guy is advocating
So Alaska guy is advocating segregation and racism. Who gets the back of the bus this time? You cannot have your own set of laws etc in this day and age. So, what if you dont like the current laws so just make your own and create your own court system? "Oh I'm sorry Officer, but you dont understand. I am the president of the Kingdom of Smith, also known as the Smith residence. I have not broken any laws of the Kingdom of Smith and I, as the Judge in the court system of my soveriegn nation declare that you are trespassing. Oh, but I still want my kids to get an education paid for by the US govt and my PFD." If you weren't serious it would be funny.
PP, no one is saying there
PP, no one is saying there isnt a proble, just lets not go backward and create new problems. You also assume that just because we think this is a stupid idea that we are not Native Americans. I am very proud of my Native American heritage. That doesnt mean I should create my own little empire.
not getting it
Every state, and city has its own laws and courts. Juveniles have separate courts from adults as to civil and criminal matters. Nothing to do with racism so separate and equal. these are just hot-button place holders for though full rational arguments.
But things like Child support
But things like Child support jurisdiction are beyond that. I am not going to go to the city clerk for a decision on my child support. That is a state thing. What you et al are advocating is taking matters out of state court and deciding it yourself. The previous question was a great one. What happens in mixed race altercations? Does the white husband get screwed because his Native ex-wife went to a sympathetic Native court? The law is the law. If it isnt functioning as you want it to, then work to get it changed. MLK did not simply push for a Black court. He changed a nation. Remember? Lady Justice is blind. Color blind, racially blind, and so on. Maybe you should try it.
De facto raceism
So you assume that Tribal court will not follow the law and be unbiased. OOH... the boogyman of mixed races, or maybe your real fear is that Tribal court may have jurisdiction over a white dead-beat father. Sure lady justice is blind that is why blacks are overwhelming prosecuted and given longer sentences that their criminal white counterparts. What Winnie the Pooh world do you live in?
So work to fix it. Why
So work to fix it. Why should Natives get their own court and not every other interested party?
The earlier question though was that it could be biased as well. Natives are not immune to bias and greed. So perhaps the not so great white father gets stuck paying 80% child support instead of 50%. That would be in the judges rights, correct? Is it fair to the white spouse to be tried in a Native court? There is a lot of wiggle room within the law, white or native.
Please explain how this would not be a type of segregation?
Interesting Retorts. Alaska
Interesting Retorts. Alaska Native Land Claims Act. 1971, didn't solve any our problems of sovereighty over our lands and sea. The federal government wanted Alaskan Oil.
The Constitution of the United States didn't protect Alaskan Native nor American Indians. Was it 1929 when Alaskan Natives could vote...before that Alaskan Natives couldn't own any land, before that assimilation and before that termination of all Indigenous Peoples.
Non-Native people have a sad history...wonder why your flipping the bill. I pay taxes so I speak my mind with your Constitution. haha.
I can still see racism is alive and well in Alaska. But, I don't care. Besides, its my own opinion. Non-Native people are still throwing us crumbs.
@ kpawsuh
because if the racism or discrimination or wrongdoing is against a person of white decent. then it is ok nobody cares but if it is against anybody else then it is a problem.
@ohreally: don't be so
@ohreally: don't be so stupid. Racism is never okay, but if I'm not mistaken, whites are the people who wield most of the power in this country, so any racism directed against us is largely impotent.
It is kind of funny that I
It is kind of funny that I get painted as racist for saying that everyone should be treated equally under the law. Guess equal isnt enough for some. Wouldnt that make them racist?
@pp
well I don't know that I completely agree with you, but ok.
I do think however that it is probably an argument for another time. So I will let it go for now.
This is what I am talking
This is what I am talking about...people and vague comments like ohreally. The time is now to talk about Inherent Rights and Solvernity. Don't let it go ohreally! let it out...what's on your mind?
Children
The judge's order basically said Alaska tribe's have inherent authority to take care of native children.
The comments I have read tell me "Racisim is alive and well in Alaska."
"Racisim is alive and well in Alaska."
Because of racisim and discrimination has finally or wait and see on jurisdication of our Native Children. We always had it now its time people realize that Alaska belongs to Alaska Natives is all I am saying.
We been governing ourselves since time and memorial until 1867, Non-Natives thought they had a better idea. Look, we were doing fine before you arrived. Just remember whose lands your walking on.
If we Natives actually had land base, we could govern and survive in todays world. Native Corporation Lands don't count because we still can't do anything with it. I can't build nothing on it and barely walk on it. But, that's another Rant.
I hate to explain myself or defend myself because Non-Native people are ignorant and in denial about the truth and facts of our Indigenous Peoples. Just look at all the negative retorter's trying to shut me up...I can only conclude that they are racists people.
Oh well...oh well. It's only my opinion shared by others.
@Aankadaxtseen
i may be mistaken but it sounds as if you are infact a little racist yourself?