Interest of A.B.
-----------------
Norean Hoots, L.S.W., Petitioner and Appellant
v.
K.B., Respondent and Appellee
----------------
F.B., A.B., and
Monty Mertz, Guardian
ad Litem, Respondents
----------------
Turtle Mountain Band
of Chippewa, Intervenor and Appellee
Judge Cynthia Rothe-Seeger
| Appellant: | Susan Lynne Bailey , Asst. State's Attorney | |
| Appellee: | B J. Jones | |
| Appellee: | Johnson, Ramstad & Mottinger, PLLP |
Listen to recording of oral argument
using RealPlayer Basic,© a free download.
I. Whether the district court erred in granting tribe's motion to transfer jurisdiction and dismiss case
a. Whether district court erred in not providing adequate time for non-moving parties to respond to tribe's request for review of referee's decision and thus not considering non-moving parties' positions on tribe's request for review
B. Whether district court erred in not requesting or reviewing transcripts of evidentiary hearing held by referee upon which the referee's decision was based in part when review must be upon review of the entire record
c. Whether district court erred in reversing referee's decision denying tribe's motion to transfer jurisdiction because good cause exists to deny transfer of jurisdiction to tribal court
1. Whether the tribe's motion to transfer jurisdiction was untimely under the facts of this case
2. Whether the tribal court is an inconvenient forum under the facts of the case>br> D. Whether evidence regarding best interests of the child should have been accepted and considered by the referee and the district court
E. Whether granting a transfer to tribal court under the facts of this case was unconstitutional
1. Whether district court erred in concluding it was precluded from addressing constitutional issues of substantive due process and equal protection properly raised in underlying proceedings but not reached by referee
2. Whether A.B. is entitled to the protections of the constitution of the State of North Dakota and the constitution of the United States of America
3. Whether transferring jurisdiction to tribal court under the facts of this case violates A.B.'s entitlement to substantive due process and equal protection under state and federal constitutions
4. Whether the Indian Family Doctrine should be applied here to prevent unconstitutional application of the Indian Child Welfare Act to the facts of this case
5. Whether the United States Congress exceeded its authority under the Indian commerce clause in enacting the Indian Child Welfare Act
Appellee's Statement of the Issues:
I. Whether the district court's decision reversing a referee's denial of the tribe's motion to transfer jurisdiction under the Indian Child Welfare Act, 25 U.S.C. 1911(b) was clearly erroneous
A.. Whether the tribe's motion to transfer the termination of parental rights proceeding was untimely when the termination petition was filed six weeks after the filing of the petition and no proceedings had been held on the petition
B. Whether the district court clearly erred when it found that transfer of the proceedings to the tribal court would not result in an inconvenient forum
II. Whether the referee's order granting the tribe's motion to exclude testimony regarding "the best interest of the child," if properly before this court, was clearly erroneous
III. Whether the district court's transfer of jurisdiction to the tribal court was unconstitutional
Add Docket 20020309 RSS