In re the Custody of T.J.B.
This text of 2 Am. Tribal Law 224 (In re the Custody of T.J.B.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Fort Peck Appellate Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
ORDER OF REMAND
A PETITION FOR REVIEW (mislabeled as “Notice of Appeal”) having been filed June 22, 2000 by Robert E. Welch, on behalf of Ann Alvstad, from an Order of Dismissal, issued from the bench by the Honorable Marvin Youpee, on June 9, 2000, and good cause appearing therefor, this Court finds as follows:
1. On January 20, 2000, a Petition pursuant to Title IX CCOJ 2000 § 3011 was filed by the Fort Peck Tribes’ Guardian ad Litem, LaFon Copenhaver, on behalf of T.J.B. (d.o.b. 1/14/00), a minor Indian child. (Woo-1-012) The Petition sought to have the child made a ward of the Court based on a referral alleging the possibility of exposure of the child to unreasonable risk.
2. An emergency hearing was held on January 20, 2000, pursuant to Title IX CCOJ 2000 § 202.2 On the same day, the Court issued its order declaring the child a [225]*225ward of the Court pursuant to Title IX CCOJ 2000 § 102(b) or (d).3 The Court placed the child in the care and supervision of the Montana State Department of Public Health and Human Services, Child and Family Services (DPHHS), for a period of ninety (90) days. Although it is not certain from documents in the Woo-1-012 file, it is believed that the child was physically placed in the care of Ann Alvstad, the putative paternal grandparent.
3. On March 31, 2000, Ann Alvstad filed a petition in the Fort Peck Tribal Court seeking custody of T.J.B. pursuant to Title X CCOJ 2000 § SO^a 4 (Woo-4-036).
4. Pursuant to the Court’s order of January 20, 2000, and Title IX CCOJ 2000 § 509, the Court commenced a review hearing on April 18, 2000. The hearing was continued to April 20, 2000, at which [226]*226time it concluded, resulting in an order returning the child to his biological mother, with reasonable visitation to the ‘father.’ 5 The DPHHS care and supervision of T.J.B. was vacated, however, the Court continued its wardship of the child. In its written order issued April 21, 2000, the Court ordered a further review/status hearing on July 11, 2000 at 2:00 p.m.
5. On May 2, 2000, a Motion to Dismiss Ann’s Petition for Custody (WooM-036) was filed by the biological mother based upon the fact the reasons for Ann’s petition no longer exist and that the child was no longer in Ann’s physical custody. Essentially, the mother’s petition alleged that Ann’s petition had been rendered moot by the Court’s order of April 21, 2000.
6. On May 17, 2000, Ann’s rebuttal to the Motion to Dismiss is filed, citing various reasons that the Court should deny the motion and conclude the proceedings at the further review hearing date of July 11, 2000, which had been previously scheduled.
7 On May 25, 2000, the biological mother filed a reply brief. A hearing was then calendared for June 9, 2000.
8. The Woo-4-036 file contains a ‘Courtroom Log’ with handwritten notes indicating that a hearing was held on June 9, 2000. The words ‘Petition Dismissed for Custody’ are written, ostensibly by the Court Clerk on this log.
9. No written order of the June 9, 2000, hearing appears in the file.
10. This Court cannot properly evaluate the merits of Ann’s petition for review without a final, written order of the Tribal Court regarding Woo-4-036.
NOW THEREFORE, IT IS THE ORDER OF THIS COURT:
The matter is remanded to the Tribal Court for its order following the hearing of June 9, 2000 with a copy of said order to be filed with this Court within thirty days.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
2 Am. Tribal Law 224, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-custody-of-tjb-ftpeckctapp-2000.