STATE EX REL FIRECROW v DIST COU

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

No. 13825 I N THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE O F MONTANA 1975 STATE OF MONTANA, ex re1 I N THE MATTER OF THE ADOPTION OF IVAN FIRECROW, a m i n o r by LEROY RUNSABOVE and J O S E P H I N E RUNSABOVE, Petitioners, THE D I S T R I C T COURT OF THE SIXTEENTH J U D I C I A L D I S T R I C T O F THE STATE OF MONTANA, I N AM) FOR THE COUNTY OF ROSEBUD; and THE HONORABLE ALFRED B e COATE, JUDGE THEREOF, Respondents, ORIGINAL PROCEEDING : C o u n s e l of R e c o r d : For P e t i t i o n e r s : L e w i s E. B r u e g g e m a n n , argued, R i l l i r n g s , M o n t a n a For R e s p o n d e n t s : C l a r e n c e T. B e l u e argued, H a r d i n , Montana Submitted: M a y 14, 1975 D e c i d e d : JUk - 2 M r . J u s t i c e Wesley C a s t l e s d e l i v e r e d t h e Opinion of t h e Court. T h i s i s a p e t i t i o n f o r a w r i t of s u p e r v i s o r y c o n t r o l o r o t h e r a p p r o p r i a t e w r i t s e e k i n g r e l i e f from an o r d e r of t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t of t h e s i x t e e n t h j u d i c i a l d i s t r i c t , Rosebud County, which h e l d t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t had no j u r i s d i c t i o n i n t h i s adoption proceeding and o r d e r e d t h e c a s e d i s m i s s e d . O August 20, 1974, p e t i t i o n e r s Leroy and Josephine n Runsabove f i l e d i n t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t a p e t i t i o n f o r t h e a d o p t i o n of Ivan Firecrow, a minor c h i l d , born May 1 0 , 1965. Consent t o t h e a d o p t i o n and waiver of f u r t h e r n o t i c e , executed by t h e n a t u r a l f a t h e r , was f i l e d w i t h t h e p e t i t i o n f o r a d o p t i o n . Petitioners, t h e c h i l d , and t h e n a t u r a l mother a r e a l l e n r o l l e d members of t h e Northern Cheyenne T r i b e and have r e s i d e d on t h e Northern Cheyenne R e s e r v a t i o n a t a l l times p e r t i n e n t t o t h i s m a t t e r . P r e v i o u s l y , on J u l y 1, 1969, Ivan Firecrow was made a ward of t h e Northern Cheyenne T r i b a l Court upon a f i n d i n g t h a t t h e n a t u r a l mother had n e g l e c t e d t h e c h i l d . A o r d e r was e n t e r e d n t h a t day g i v i n g p e t i t i o n e r s temporary custody of t h e c h i l d . have had custody of t h e c h i l d s i n c e t h a t time. They O August 30, 1974, n t h e t r i b a l c o u r t o r d e r e d t h e n a t u r a l mother be g r a n t e d temporary custody of t h e c h i l d f o r s i x weeks d u r i n g t h e summer months. A r t i c l e 111, s e c t i o n 2 Revised Law and Order Ordinances of t h e Northern Cheyenne T r i b e of t h e Northern Cheyenne R e s e r v a t i o n , reads, i n pertinent part: "The T r i b a l Court of t h e Northern Cheyenne R e s e r v a t i o n s h a l l have j u r i s d i c t i o n t o h e a r , p a s s upon, and approve a p p l i c a t i o n s f o r a d o p t i o n s among members of t h e Northern Cheyenne T r i b e . It Upon proper showing and d e c i s i o n by t h e c o u r t , such a d o p t i o n s s h a l l be b i n d i n g upon a l l concerned and h e r e a f t e r o n l y a d o p t i o n s s o approved by t h e T r i b a l Court s h a l l be recognized." The d i s t r i c t c o u r t h e l d a h e a r i n g upon t h e p e t i t i o n f o r a d o p t i o n on October 11, 1974. Ivan was p r e s e n t a t t h e h e a r i n g , having come from Oregon where he a t t e n d s s c h o o l under t h e a u s p i c e s of t h e Morman Church, d u r i n g t h e s c h o o l y e a r . The n a t u r a l mother o b j e c t e d t o t h e h e a r i n g a l l e g i n g t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t had no j u r i s d i c t i o n t o h e a r and g r a n t t h e p e t i t i o n f o r adoption and, t h a t t h e m a t t e r was w i t h i n t h e e x c l u s i v e j u r i s - d i c t i o n of t h e t r i b a l c o u r t . Following submission of b r i e f s on t h e i s s u e of j u r i s d i c t i o n and r e c e i p t of an a d v i s o r y o p i n i o n from t h e a p p e l l a t e c o u r t of t h e Northern Cheyenne T r i b e , t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t i s s u e d i t s o r d e r h o l d i n g t h a t i t had no j u r i s d i c t i o n o v e r t h e a d o p t i o n and o r d e r e d t h e c a s e dismissed. W a r e p r e s e n t e d w i t h a s i n g l e i s s u e f o r review: e Whether, upon t h e f a c t s o u t l i n e d above, t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t h a s 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 over t h e i n s t a n t p e t i t i o n f o r a d o p t i o n ? W e h o l d i t does have such j u r i s d i c t i o n . ~ o n t a n a ' ss t a t u t e s r e g a r d i n g a d o p t i o n a r e i n Chapter 2, T i t l e 61, R.C.M. 1947. S e c t i o n 61-202 r e a d s : I1 Any c h i l d p r e s e n t w i t h i n t h i s s t a t e a t t h e t i m e t h e p e t i t i o n f o r adoption i s f i l e d , i r r e s p e c t i v e of p l a c e of b i r t h o r p l a c e of r e s i d e n c e , may be adopted. I I S e c t i o n 61-204 r e a d s : "Proceedings f o r a d o p t i o n must be brought i n t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t of t h e county where t h e p e t i t i o n e r s r e s i d e . II The s t a t u t e s have been complied w i t h . Ivan was w i t h i n Montana, a t home w i t h p e t i t i o n e r s d u r i n g summer v a c a t i o n when t h e p e t i t i o n was f i l e d . P e t i t i o n e r s p l a c e of r e s i d e n c e i s t h e town o f Lame Deer, county of Rosebud, s t a t e of Montana. While t h e r e s i d e n c e of p e t i t i o n e r s and Ivan i s w i t h i n t h e e x t e r i o r b o u n d a r i e s of t h e Northern Cheyenne R e s e r v a t i o n , t h a t r e s i d e n c e i s a l s o w i t h i n t h e s t a t e of Montana. Organized V i l l a g e of Icake v. Egan, 369 U.S. 60, 82 S.Ct. 562, 7 L ed 2d 573. The Northern Cheyenne T r i b e i s i n c o r p o r a t e d pursuant t o t h e Wheeler-Howard Act, 25 U.S.C. $ 461 e t seq. It i s organized and e x i s t i n g under a c o n s t i t u t i o n and by-laws r a t i f i e d by t h e t r i b e on November 2, 1935, and approved by t h e S e c r e t a r y of t h e I n t e r i o r on November 23, 1935. t h i s s t a t e had j u r i s d i c t i o n Indians. P r i o r t o t h a t time t h e c o u r t s of over adoption m a t t e r s i n v o l v i n g S t a t e ex r e l . I r o n Bear v. D i s t r i c t Court, 162 Mont. 335, 512 P.2d 1292; Bad Horse v. Bad Horse, 163 Mont. 445, 517 P.2d 893, 31 St.Rep'. 22. The j u r i s d i c t i o n of t h e c o u r t s of t h e s t a t e of Montana i s n o t d i v e s t e d by t h e subsequent, u n i l a t e r a l a c t i o n of t h e Northern Cheyenne T r i b e i n e n a c t i n g A r t i c l e 111, s e c t i o n 2, of i t s Revised Law and Order Ordinances, h e r e t o f o r e quoted. Assuming t h a t t h e t r i b a l c o u r t has j u r i s d i c t i o n over adoptions i n volving I n d i a n s , i t i s a j u r i s d i c t i o n concurrent w i t h t h a t of t h e d i s t r i c t court. It i s n o t an e x c l u s i v e j u r i s d i c t i o n . The United S t a t e s Congress has i m p l i c i t l y recognized t h a t s t a t e c o u r t s have concurrent j u r i s d i c t i o n over adoptions involving I n d i a n s i n 25 U.S.C. § 372a. The d i s t r i c t c o u r t having always had j u r i s d i c - t i o n over adoptions i n v o l v i n g I n d i a n s , 25 U.S.C. 5 1322 i s n o t applicable. This Court i n Bad Horse v. Bad Horse, 163 Mont. 445, 517 P.2d 893, 895, 3 1 St.R.ep. 22, 25, s t a t e d : " ~ n r o l l e dmembers of Indian t r i b e s w i t h i n Montana a r e c i t i z e n s of t h e United S t a t e s and c i t i z e n s of t h e s t a t e of Montana. A I n d i a n i s e n t i t l e d , a s n any o t h e r c i t i z e n , t o b r i n g an a c t i o n i n t h e c o u r t s of t h i s s t a t e . A r t . 111, Sec. 6, of t h e 1889 Montana C o n s t i t u t i o n (Art. 11, Sec. 16 of t h e 1972 Montana C o n s t i t u t i o n ) ; S e c t i o n 83-102, R.C.M. 1947; Bonnet v. Seekins, 126 Mont. 24, 243 P.2d 317." Compare McCrea v. Busch, 164 Mont. 442, 524 P.2d 781, 31 St.Rep. 551, where an Indian sued a non-Indian i n a s t a t e c o u r t f o r damages a r i s i n g out of an a c c i d e n t on a r e s e r v a t i o n . Being c i t i z e n s of t h e s t a t e o f liontana, p e t i t i o n e r s and Ivan a r e e n t i t l e d t o t h e e q u a l p r o t e c t i o n of t h e laws. A r t i c l e 11, S e c t i o n 4 , 1972 Montana C o n s t i t u t i o n . Petitioners a r e e n t i t l e d t o t h e u s e of Montana's c o u r t system on a p a r w i t h o t h e r Montana c i t i z e n s r e g a r d l e s s of t h e f a c t t h a t t h e y a r e enr o l l e d members of an I n d i a n t r i b e and r e s i d e w i t h i n t h e e x t e r i o r boundaries of t h a t I n d i a n r e s e r v a t i o n . P e t i t i o n e r s and Ivan a r e e n t i t l e d t o t h e b e n e f i t of Montana's a d o p t i o n s t a t u t e s , a s a r e a l l Montana c i t i z e n s , r e g a r d l e s s of t h e f a c t t h e y a r e e n r o l l e d members of an I n d i a n t r i b e and r e s i d e w i t h i n t h e e x t e r i o r b o u n d a r i e s of t h a t Indian reservation. To hold t h a t t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t does n o t have 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 over t h i s c o n t r o v e r s y would be t o d e p r i v e p e t i t i o n e r s and Ivan of t h e s e r i g h t s of c i t i z e n s h i p . I t would make them something l e s s than f u l l c i t i z e n s . The o r d e r of t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t i s r e v e r s e d and t h e m a t t e r i s remanded f o r f u r t h e r proceedings c o n s i s t e n t w i t h t h i s opinion. / /\chief / Justice Justices. P

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.