STATE EX REL FLAMMOND v FLAMMOND

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

No. 80-12 I N THE SUPREME COURT O THE STATE OF M N A A F OTN 1980 STATE OF MONTANA, e x r e l . , SHELLEY ANN F A M N , L M O D P e t i t i o n e r s and A p p e l l a n t s , -vsJOSEPH L. FA M N , L M O D Respondent and Respondent. Appeal from: D i s t r i c t Court of t h e Ninth J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t , I n and f o r t h e County o f G l a c i e r , The H o n o r a b l e R. D. M c P h i l l i p s , J u d g e p r e s i d i n g . C o u n s e l o f Record: For Appellant: Hon. Mike G r e e l y , A t t o r n e y G e n e r a l , H e l e n a , Montana L a r r y E p s t e i n a r g u e d , Deputy County A t t o r n e y , C u t Bank, Montana F o r Respondent: S t e v e n Bunch a r g u e d , Montana L e g a l S e r v i c e s , H e l e n a , Montana D. M i c h a e l E a k i n a r g u e d , Montana L e g a l S e r v i c e s , H a r d i n , Montana F o r Amicus C u r i a e : M i c h a e l G. G a r r i t y , Dept. o f Revenue, H e l e n a , Montana Submitted: Decided: Filed: ffEC 1 9 1980 September 1 5 , 1980 1g lg80 Mr. J u s t i c e Court. Daniel of the P e t i t i o n e r S h e l l y a n n Flammond a p p e a l s a r u l i n g o f the J. Snea delivered the Opinion G l a c i e r County D i s t r i c t C o u r t d i s m i s s i n g , f o r l a c k o f j u r i s d i c t i o n , an a c t i o n s e e k i n g t o e n f o r c e c h i l d s u p p o r t p a y m e n t s under Act Montana's Uniform (URESA), T i t l e 4 0 , Reciprocal Chapter Enforcement 5, of Support Having d e t e r m i n e d MCA. t h a t t h e D i s t r i c t Court lacked both s u b j e c t matter over t h e transaction and p e r s o n a l jurisdiction over the respondent, we a f f i r m . Lloyd Flammond Tribe. i s an e n r o l l e d member of S h e l l y a n n Flammond is not. the Blackfeet They were m a r r i e d on March 2 5 , 1976 i n Long B e a c h , C a l i f o r n i a , and t h e n moved t o Babb, Montana, which i s l o c a t e d w i t h i n t h e b o u n d a r i e s o f t h e Blackfeet Reservation. On A u g u s t 5 , 1 9 7 6 , t h e i r o n l y c h i l d , S u s i e Renee Flammond, was b o r n t o them. same y e a r , t h e c o u p l e s e p a r a t e d . California and established I n November o f t h e Mother and c h i l d moved t o residence there. The father r e m a i n e d on t h e r e s e r v a t i o n where h e s t i l l r e s i d e s . I n 1977 t h e m o t h e r f i l e d a p e t i t i o n u n d e r C a l i f o r n i a ' s URESA s e e k i n g m o n t h l y c h i l d s u p p o r t p a y m e n t s the father. of $320 from The County o f Los A n g e l e s , from whom t h e m o t h e r was r e c e i v i n g p u b l i c a i d f o r t h e c h i l d , j o i n e d t h e p e t i t i o n . The C a l i f o r n i a S u p e r i o r C o u r t f o r t h e C o u n t y of Los A n g e l e s f o u n d t h a t t h e f a t h e r owed a d u t y o f s u p p o r t and o r d e r e + t h e petition sent t o Glacier County D i s t r i c t C o u r t i n Montana f o r t h e f i l i n g o f an e n f o r c e m e n t a c t i o n u n d e r t h e p r o v i s i o n s o f M o n t a n a ' s URESA, s e c t i o n 40-5-101, The Montana show court c a u s e why he payments under issued should e t seq., an o r d e r n o t be t h e Montana A c t . for required A MCA. the father t o make Glacier to support County Deputy S h e r i f f s e r v e d t h e show c a u s e o r d e r on t h e f a t h e r w i t h i n t h e b o u n d a r i e s of to dismiss the Blackfeet Reservation. on grounds that the The f a t h e r moved District Court lacked p e r s o n a l and s u b j e c t m a t t e r j u r i s d i c t i o n and t h a t s e r v i c e o f p r o c e s s was motion. insufficient. Finding, The D i s t r i c t C o u r t g r a n t e d t h e inter alia, that none of the acts of n o n s u p p o r t a l l e g e d i n t h e p e t i t i o n had o c c u r r e d i n Montana, the court concluded it that lacked subject matter juris- diction. Where, complied with criminal may the not neither current S S 1321-1326, U.S.C. and as here, the s t a t e nor federal enabling jurisdiction to Indian subject matter v. Court 27 (1972), 1 5 8 Mont. D i s t r i c t Court L.Ed.2d "significant" or 507), unless the "substantial" 227, 557 P.2d s e r v i c e s rendered to 523, over ( s e e Blackwolf 493 ( 1 9 7 1 ) , 400 U.S. P.2d 423, Crawford v. 1293; 91 S.Ct. transaction contacts with o u t s i d e of r e s e r v a t i o n b o u n d a r i e s . 1 7 6 Mont. 25 Montana jurisdiction a r i s i n g on I n d i a n r e s e r v a t i o n s 480, has statutes, reservations, transactions Kennerly v. tribe r e g u l a t i n g t h e e x t e n s i o n of s t a t e c i v i l exercise District the entails the state Roy ( 1 9 7 8 ) , 392, ( a c t i o n t o r e c o v e r payments f o r Indian attorney both on and off the r e s e r v a t i o n where t h e employment c o n t r a c t was e n t e r e d i n t o off the (1976), reservation); 170 Mont. Little 510, 555 Horn P.2d State 211, L i t t l e Horn S t a t e Bank ( 1 9 7 7 ) , 430 U.S. 5 1 L.Ed.2d Bank v. cert.den. Stops v. 904, 97 S . C t . District (where the reservation Mont. 445, 1171, 580 ( w h e r e I n d i a n p a r t i e s had o b t a i n e d l o a n s o f f t h e r e s e r v a t i o n b u t w i t h i n Montana); S t a t e ex r e l . v. Stops Court (1976), reservation shooting); 517 P.2d 8 3 , 42 L.Ed.2d 170 Mont. Indian Bad 893, was Horse v. cert.den. 208, a 552 suspect Bad H o r s e 419 U.S. Old E l k P.2d in an 1394, off- ( 1 9 7 4 ) , 163 847, 95 S . C t . 76 ( w h e r e t h e I n d i a n c o u p l e had b e e n m a r r i e d off the reservation); See also, v. 382, 1 0 6 ; De C o t e a u v . D i s t r i c t C o u r t ( 1 9 7 5 ) , 420 U.S. 3 , 95 S . C t . 95 S . C t . 14, 1 0 8 2 , 43 L.Ed.2d 1 6 6 7 , 44 L.Ed.2d 96 S . C t . District ( 1 9 7 6 ) , 424 U.S. n. 389 n . Fisher 95. 943, 300, reh.den. Court 47 L.Ed.2d 425, 421 U.S. 429 939, Nowhere d o e s e i t h e r T i t l e I V o f t h e S o c i a l S e c u r i t y A c t , 42 U.S.C. § 601, e t s e q . , or the r e g u l a t i o n s promulgated under it a f f i r m a t i v e l y a u t h o r i z e t h e s t a t e s by means o f URESA l e g i s l a t i o n t o assume j u r i s d i c t i o n over reservation Indians who have neglected to provide support for t h e i r dependents. Here Montana over there are sufficient the absolutely to vest respondent, no o f f - r e s e r v a t i o n state acts in courts with jurisdiction a reservation Indian. reservation a c t s occurred i n California. The o n l y o f f - I t is w e l l - s e t t l e d t h a t a r e s e r v a t i o n I n d i a n ' s d o m i c i l e on t h e r e s e r v a t i o n i s n o t an i n - s t a t e c o n t a c t which g r a n t s j u r i s d i c t i o n to state courts. F i s h e r v. D i s t r i c t C o u r t ( 1 9 7 6 ) , s u p r a ; K e n n e r l y v. District Court U.S. (1971), supra; 217, 79 S . C t . As a W i l l i a m s v. 269, 3 L.Ed.2d prerequisite to in 7 Lee ( 1 9 5 9 ) , 358 251. personam jurisdiction, is sought f o r u m s t a t e and t h e p a r t y o v e r whom j u r i s d i c t i o n m u s t be l i n k e d by c e r t a i n "minimum c o n t a c t s the maintenance notions of of the fair suit play does and not .. . 1 5 4 , 90 L.Ed. 311 U.S. respondent 457, 463, father 'traditional substantial justice.'" 310, 316, 9 5 , q u o t i n g ~ i l l i k e n . Meyer ( 1 9 4 0 ) , v 61 S.Ct. has such t h a t offend I n t e r n a t i o n a l Shoe v. W a s h i n g t o n ( 1 9 4 5 ) , 326 U.S. 66 S . C t . the 339, 85 L.Ed. 278. Here t h e i n j u r e d n e i t h e r p e r s o n s nor p r o p e r t y w i t h i n t h e S t a t e o f Montana. The c a u s e o f a c t i o n t o e n f o r c e s u p p o r t payments a r i s e s s o l e l y from h i s d o m e s t i c r e l a t i o n s . The c o n t r o v e r s y is t h e outgrowth of a separation that did n o t o c c u r w i t h i n M o n t a n a ' s t e r r i t o r i a l j u r i s d i c t i o n and t h a t was not otherwise essentially the connected same with this constellation S t a t e s Supreme C o u r t h a s h e l d of state. facts, Under the United t h a t a s t a t e ' s a s s e r t i o n of p e r s o n a l j u r i s d i c t i o n would be b o t h u n r e a s o n a b l e and impermissible. U.S. 84, U.S. Kulko v . 908, 4(B), California 98 S . C t . 96-97, 98 S . C t . 14.R.Civ.P. Superior 1 6 9 0 , 56 L.Ed.2d 3127, 57 L.Ed.2d ( 1 9 7 8 ) , 436 Court 132, reh.den. 1150; 438 See a l s o , Rule The D i s t r i c t C o u r t had no b a s i s t o a s s e r t p e r s o n a l j u r i s d i c t i o n over t h e respondent. C o n t r a r y t o t h e m o t h e r ' s c o n t e n t i o n s , Natewa v . Natewa ( 1 9 7 2 ) , 84 N.M. 69, jurisdiction this in 499 P.2d case. 691, does not There support state t h e N e w Mexico Supreme C o u r t f o u n d s t a t e j u r i s d i c t i o n o v e r t h e URESA a c t i o n b r o u g h t by a non-Indian Wisconsin plaintiff against husband l i v i n g on t h e Zuni R e s e r v a t i o n . ( 1 9 5 6 ) , 21 N . J . 599, 1 2 3 A.2d that "all that was URESA was "the presence responding state, needed the Indian C i t i n g Daly v. Daly 3 , t h e New Mexico c o u r t s t a t e d for of her the presence proper jurisdiction" husband of the or father wife or under in child the in a n o t h e r s t a t e , and t h e e x i s t e n c e o f a d u t y o f s u p p o r t on t h e p a r t of t h e f a t h e r u n d e r t h e l a w s o f t h e r e s p o n d i n g s t a t e . " 499 P.2d at 693. In Natewa, " p r e s e n t " i n t h e responding court held, the state husband was clearly (New M e x i c o ) f o r as the he had s u b m i t t e d t o s t a t e j u r i s d i c t i o n when h e v o l u n t a r i l y appeared i n lower c o u r t p r o c e e d i n g s . 499 P.2d a t 693. I n t h i s c a s e , however, t h e f a t h e r h a s c h a l l e n g e d s t a t e court jurisdiction from t h e o u t s e t . in state jurisdiction so a s personam over jurisdiction He h a s n o t a c q u i e s c e d t o g i v e t h e Montana him. He c a n n o t be "present" within t h e responding s t a t e , is clearly beyond the territorial for court in s a i d t o be the reservation jurisdiction of the Montana c o u r t s . S e e , Kennerly v. D i s t r i c t C o u r t , s u p r a . S i m i l a r l y , t h e r e e x i s t s no d u t y t o s u p p o r t on t h e p a r t o f t h e f a t h e r i n Montana. For, a s w e have determined, the Montana c o u r t s do n o t h a v e s u b j e c t m a t t e r j u r i s d i c t i o n o v e r the transaction in question. It forum. is not our purpose here W have no c h o i c e b u t e to deny M s . Flammond t o a p p l y t h e law a s i t h a s b e e n d e c l a r e d by t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s Supreme C o u r t . b r i e f and a t o r a l a r g u m e n t , a In his respondent vigorously contended t h a t t h e t r i b a l c o u r t would p r o v i d e a f a i r and v i a b l e forum for the judicial In recent e n f o r c e m e n t of c h i l d s u p p o r t o b l i g a t i o n s . years, American Indian tribes have strived to become i n d e p e n d e n t and r e s p o n s i b l e g o v e r n m e n t e n t i t i e s . There is e v e r y r e a s o n t o hope, t h e r e f o r e , t h a t t h e B l a c k f e e t Tribe w i l l afford the petitioning wife a viable its courts. or should plaintiffs, remedy i n Should t r i b a l governments prove uncooperative their they courts discriminate run the risk of against non-Indian eventual Congressional l e g i s l a t i o n t h a t c o u l d d e p r i v e them o f much o f t h e autonomy t h e y have s t r u g g l e d s o l o n g t o a c h i e v e . I t a p p e a r s t h a t t h e r e i s no a p p e a l f r o m a t r i b a l c o u r t r u l i n g t o t h e f e d e r a l c o u r t system. S e e W e l l s v. ( 1 9 8 0 ) , 486 F.Supp. 2; 1303. court However, 807, 809 and n . Philbrick ( 1 9 8 0 ) , 25 U.S.C. t h a t i s n o t an a r g u m e n t i n f a v o r o f jurisdiction. A j u r i s d i c t i o n by j u d i c i a l s t a t e may simply n o t 9 state extend its f i a t no m a t t e r how c o m p e l l i n g t h e p o l i c y c o n s i d e r a t i o n s f o r d o i n g s o may seem i f t h e r e i s no legal basis to support state jurisdiction. If a remedy o t h e r t h a n t r i b a l c o u r t i s t o e x i s t , Congress must p r o v i d e it. The judgment o f t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t i s a f f i r m e d . W Concur: e C M f Justice Justices Mr. J u s t i c e John Conway H a r r i s o n d i s s e n t i n g : I respectfully dissent. The m a j o r i t y h a s found t h a t t h i s s t a t e ' s c o u r t s c a n n o t e x e r c i s e j u r i s d i c t i o n o v e r M r . Flamrnond b e c a u s e he h a s i n s u f f i c i e n t c o n t a c t s w i t h t h e S t a t e of Montana. For t h e p u r p o s e s of t h e URESA, he i s a c i t i z e n o n l y o f t h e Blackfeet reservation. I b e l i e v e t h a t i n rendering such a d e c i - s i o n , m c o l l e a g u e s have c o n t i n u e d on a c o u r s e t h a t l e a d s y even f u r t h e r away from t h e e s t a b l i s h m e n t o f a common-sense r u l e of law i n I n d i a n j u r i s d i c t i o n c a s e s . T h i s C o u r t e a r l y r e c o g n i z e d t h a t t h e r e e x i s t e d an inherent fairness i n a r u l e t h a t be sued -- ". . . ' I n d i a n s may s u e or i n s t a t e c o u r t s , s i n c e t h e ' l a t t e r a r e g e n e r a l l y open t o a l l p e r s o n s i r r e s p e c t i v e of r a c e , c o l o r , o r c i t i z e n s h i p . ' " Bonnet v . S e e k i n s ( 1 9 5 2 ) , 126 Mont. 2 4 , 26, 243 P.2d 317, 318, c i t i n g 27 Am.Jur. supplied.) I n d i a n s , S 2 1 a t 554. (Emphasis I s it no l o n g e r t h e p o l i c y of t h i s C o u r t t o s t r i v e t o i n t e r p r e t t h e law i n a f a i r and j u s t manner w i t h o u t regard t o t h e c o l o r of a person's skin? I am m i n d f u l t h a t t h e m a j o r i t y i s i n k e e p i n g w i t h t h e t r e n d of c a s e law i n t h i s a r e a , b u t I c a n n o t i n good cons c i e n c e s u p p o r t a l e g a l t r e n d which o p e r a t e s upon t h e i n e q u i t a b l e and u n f a i r p r e m i s e t h a t some c i t i z e n s c a n be c i t i z e n s f o r t h e purposes of s t a t e b e n e f i t s , y e t escape r e s p o n s i b i l i t y by t h e d e n i a l of t h a t c i t i z e n s h i p when a judgment t o s u p p o r t h i s c h i l d r e n may be r e n d e r e d a g a i n s t him. I t i s m view t h i s o p i n i o n s e r v e s o n l y t o p e r p e t u a t e y and expand a n a l r e a d y unworkable l e g a l framework. When Congress made I n d i a n s c i t i z e n s of t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s , i t a l s o made them c i t i z e n s of t h e s t a t e s i n which they lived. "An I n d i a n , becoming a c i t i z e n of t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s and r e s i d i n g i n a s t a t e , i s h e l d t o be a c i t i z e n of that state." v . Moe (D.c. C o n f e d e r a t e d S a l i s h and Kootenai T r i b e s , Mont. Mont. 1 9 7 5 ) , 392 F.Supp. 1297 1319, n. 5 (Judge Smith, d i s s e n t i n g ) , c i t i n g Boyd v. Nebraska ( 1 8 9 2 ) , 143 U.S. 135-162, 1 2 S.Ct. 375, 36 L.Ed. 103. It is clear that this i s no l o n g e r p r e c i s e l y t r u e . A s t o t h e b e n e f i t s of s t a t e c i t i z e n s h i p , Indians a r e e n t i t l e d t o t h e f u l l measure of s t a t e s e r v i c e s , b u t a s t o t h e burdens of s t a t e c i t i z e n s h i p , t h e r e s e r v a t i o n B l a c k f e e t Indians a r e c i t i z e n s n o t answerable i n our c o u r t s . Such a d o u b l e s t a n d a r d i s a n a f f r o n t t o common-sense p o l i c i e s of f a i r n e s s and e q u a l t r e a t m e n t under t h e law. How c a n t h e B l a c k f e e t p e o p l e s o h e a r t i l y embrace Montana c i t i z e n s h i p when e d u c a t i n g t h e i r c h i l d r e n , s e e k i n g s t a t e p u b l i c a s s i s t a n c e , v o t i n g , and u s i n g s t a t e r o a d s on t h e r e s e r v a t i o n , y e t u s e t h e i r s t a t u s as on-reservation Indians as a s h i e l d a g a i n s t t h e i r s o c i a l and l e g a l o b l i g a t i o n s , w i t h o u t i n f r i n g i n g on t h e e q u a l p r o t e c t i o n r i g h t s o f non-Indian Montana c i t i z e n s ? I would submit t h a t t h e y c a n n o t . W a r e faced with a choice of inferences i n t h i s case. e W e c a n i n f e r t h a t Congress i n t e n d e d t o make J o s e p h Lloyd Flammond a f u l l and complete c i t i z e n o f t h i s s t a t e , o r t h a t i t d i d not. I f i t bestowed upon him a l l t h e r i g h t s and p r i v i l e g e s of Montana c i t i z e n s h i p , t h e n i t must have i n t e n d e d t h a t he be f u l l y a s a n s w e r a b l e i n s t a t e c o u r t s a s any o t h e r Montana c i t i z e n . To i n f e r o t h e r w i s e would be t o abandon t h e p o s i t i o n t h a t t h e Congress no l o n g e r s e e k s t o e q u a l i z e t h e b e n e f i t s and burdens of government. M c o l l e a g u e s have concluded t h a t M r . y Flammond h a s i n s u f f i c i e n t c o n t a c t s with t h e s t a t e f o r it t o e x e r c i s e j u r i s d i c t i o n o v e r him. Mr. Flammond t r a v e l s on s t a t e r o a d s when he i s on t h e r e s e r v a t i o n . He i s e n t i t l e d t o v o t e f o r p e r s o n s who w i l l c o n d u c t s t a t e a f f a i r s . He is entitled to educate h i s children i n public schools. He is entitled to b r i n g h i s c l a i m s and l i t i g a t e them i n s t a t e c o u r t s . He i s e n t i t l e d t o r e c e i v e any p u b l i c a s s i s t a n c e f o r which he qualifies. On a p p e a l , J o s e p h Lloyd Flammond w a s r e p r e s e n t e d by Montana L e g a l S e r v i c e s a t t o r n e y s , n o t t r i b a l a t t o r n e y s . Y e t , when a l l t h i s i s c o n s i d e r e d , t h e m a j o r i t y c o n c l u d e s t h a t M r . Flammond h a s i n s u f f i c i e n t c o n t a c t s w i t h t h e S t a t e o f Montana f o r s t a t e c o u r t s t o e n t e r t a i n a n a c t i o n a g a i n s t him. I n m opinion, M r . y Flammond i s a Montanan and answer- a b l e t o t h e s t a t e c o u r t l i k e a l l o t h e r Montanans who e n j o y these privileges. The m a j o r i t y a s s e r t s t h a t Kulko v . C a l i f o r n i a S u p e r i o r C o u r t ( 1 9 7 8 ) , 436 U.S. 84, 96-97, 132, r e h . d e n i e d , 438 U.S. 98 S.Ct. 908, 98 S.Ct. 1690, 56 L.Ed.2d 3127, 57 L.Ed.2d 1150, h a s e s s e n t i a l l y t h e same s e t of f a c t s a s i n t h i s c a s e and s t a n d s f o r t h e p r o p o s i t i o n t h a t a s t a t e ' s e x e r c i s e of p e r s o n a l j u r i s d i c t i o n would be b o t h u n r e a s o n a b l e and impermissible. I i n t e r p r e t t h e f a c t s i n Kulko t o be c o m p l e t e l y d i s s i m i l a r t o t h e f a c t s i n t h i s case. I n Kulko t h e husband had v i r t u a l l y no c o n t a c t s w i t h t h e S t a t e of C a l i f o r n i a . He l i v e d i n N e w York and h i s w i f e , who b r o u g h t t h e a c t i o n , lived i n California. C a l i f o r n i a attempted t o e x e r c i s e per- sonal j u r i s d i c t i o n over M r . Kulko, b u t t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s Supreme C o u r t r u l e d t h a t C a l i f o r n i a d i d n o t have j u r i s d i c t i o n , and i t would be u n r e a s o n a b l e t o compel h i s a p p e a r a n c e . T h i s was n o t a URESA a c t i o n , and t h e s u i t w a s n o t b r o u g h t i n t h e s t a t e of t h e r e s p o n d i n g s p o u s e . s i t u a t i o n before us. Compare t h i s t o t h e The s u i t was a URESA p e t i t i o n d e s i g n e d f o r t h e c o n v e n i e n c e of t h e r e s p o n d i n g s p o u s e and b r o u g h t w i t h i n a f e w m i l e s of M r . Flammond's home. Is t h i s more "unreasonable" than compelling h i s appearance i n C a l i f o r n i a , which he a d m i t s t h e S t a t e of C a l i f o r n i a c o u l d do? I con- c l u d e t h a t t h e S t a t e of Montana's e x e r c i s e o f p e r s o n a l j u r i s d i c t i o n would n o t o n l y be p e r m i s s i b l e , b u t r e a s o n a b l e and p r o p e r , and i n k e e p i n g w i t h t h e s p i r i t of URESA. I am n o t concerned h e r e w i t h t r i b e s , b u t w i t h i n d i - viduals. There i s something fundamental i n t h e c o n c e p t s of f a i r n e s s and e q u a l i t y t h a t someone a b l e t o s u e i n a c o u r t s h o u l d be amenable t o s u i t . What w e a r e s a y i n g i s t h a t M r s . Flammond, a C a l i f o r n i a c i t i z e n , c a n n o t b r i n g h e r a c t i o n i n s t a t e c o u r t s o l e l y b e c a u s e h e r husband i s now an o n - r e s e r v a t i o n B l a c k f o o t I n d i a n . A r e we n o t denying h e r e q u a l prot e c t i o n of t h e law under t h e F i f t h and F o u r t e e n t h Amendments? I t s h o u l d be f u r t h e r n o t e d t h a t o u r d e c i s i o n t o d a y d o e s n o t j u s t t r a n s f e r M r s . Flammond's c a s e t o t r i b a l c o u r t , b u t i n a p r a c t i c a l s e n s e , may l e a v e h e r w i t h o u t any remedy. The B l a c k f e e t Code h a s n o t a d o p t e d any r e c i p r o c a l p r o v i s i o n which would c r e a t e a mechanism by which t h e y may p r o c e s s a URESA p e t i t i o n . Therefore, although t h e t r i b e has undis- puted j u r i s d i c t i o n , i t may be u n a b l e t o p r o c e e d w i t h t h e p e t i t i o n b e c a u s e o f t h e a b s e n c e of any r e c i p r o c a l r e l a t i o n ship with California. Assuming t h e t r i b e c a n l i t i g a t e a URESA a c t i o n , o r a l argument r e v e a l e d t h a t two URESA a c t i o n s had been r e f e r r e d t o t r i b a l c o u r t s i n Montana w i t h no r e s u l t s U n l e s s t h a t s i t u a t i o n h a s changed, t h e t r i b a l c o u r t s seem r e l u c t a n t t o d e c i d e URESA c a s e s a g a i n s t o n - r e s e r v a t i o n t r i b a l members. Mrs. Flammond c o u l d e i t h e r s u e M r . ~lammond i n C a l i f o r n i a s t a t e c o u r t , o r d i s r e g a r d URESA and come t o Montana t o s u e i n t r i b a l c o u r t f o r r e l i e f . Either a l t e r - n a t i v e c l e a r l y d e f e a t s t h e s p i r i t and p u r p o s e of t h e URESA system. F o r t h e p u r p o s e s o f argument, I w i l l assume t h a t t h e t r i b a l c o u r t d i d e n t e r t a i n and r e s o l v e M r s . case. Flammond's I am s t i l l n o t persuaded t h a t s h e c o u l d r e c e i v e due p r o c e s s p r o t e c t i o n s s i n c e t h e r e a p p e a r s t h a t t h e r e may be no a d e q u a t e a p p e a l from t r i b a l c o u r t a t t h e f e d e r a l l e v e l . Wells v. P h i l b r i c k ( D . S.D. 1 9 8 0 ) , 486 F.Supp. See 8 0 7 , 809, n. 2 ( c o n c l u d i n g t h a t h a b e a s c o r p u s i s u n a v a i l a b l e i n d o m e s t i c relations cases). Mrs. I t i s u n f o r t u n a t e t h a t w e have d e n i e d Flamrnond h e r remedy. T h i s maze of l e g a l c r e a t i o n s s e r v e s o n l y t o impede t h e a d m i n i s t r a t i o n o f j u s t i c e and make a mockery o u t o f j u d i c i a l economy. Not o n l y i s URESA de- f e a t e d , b u t t h e mechanical and p r a c t i c a l problems w i t h t h i s d e c i s i o n l e a d m e t o b e l i e v e t h a t M r s . Flammond and o t h e r s l i k e h e r w i l l have a v e r y d i f f i c u l t t i m e o b t a i n i n g r e l i e f . Although I r e s p e c t t h e m a j o r i t y ' s d e c i s i o n , t h e r e s u l t appears t o m e t o be u n f a i r t o M r s . Flammond and u n j u s t t o t h e p e o p l e o f Montana, and I c a n n o t j o i n i n t h e i r o p i n i o n .

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.