Reaffirming Exhaustion of Tribal Remedies and Full-Faith-and-Credit for Tribal Custody Orders under ICWA

Commentary on J.A. (Father) v. Native Village of Tanana
Supreme Court of Alaska (No. 2099, 13 Aug 2025)

1. Introduction

This memorandum opinion from the Alaska Supreme Court addresses a recurring flash-point at the intersection of tribal sovereignty, state court jurisdiction, and the federal Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA). At its core, the case confirms two complementary principles:

1. State courts must accord full faith and credit to qualifying tribal child-custody orders issued under ICWA unless a narrow CINA Rule 24 exception applies; and
2. A party who wishes to question a tribal court’s jurisdiction must exhaust tribal appellate remedies before mounting a collateral attack in state court.

The dispute pits Jethro A. (the father and appellant) against the Native Village of Tanana (the tribal appellee) over custody of two children eligible for, and ultimately enrolled in, Tanana. While Father sought relief in Alaska superior court, the Koyukuk and Tanana tribal courts had already exercised protective jurisdiction after serious domestic-violence incidents. When Tanana asked the state court to register its order under Child-in-Need-of-Aid (CINA) Rule 24, the father objected, contending that the tribal courts lacked personal and subject-matter jurisdiction and that he was not required to litigate in tribal court first. The Alaska Supreme Court rejected those arguments and affirmed registration.

2. Summary of the Judgment

• Full Faith and Credit. Because Tanana’s 2023 order was a “child custody proceeding” (foster-care placement) as defined by ICWA §1903(1)(i), it is entitled to full faith and credit under §1911(d).
• No CINA Rule 24 Exception. Father failed to prove any of the three exceptions (lack of jurisdiction, order vacated/stayed/modified, or lack of notice/opportunity to be heard).
• Exhaustion Required. Following Simmonds v. Parks, exhaustion of tribal remedies is mandatory before collateral attacks in state court. Father did not pursue the Tanana appellate process despite receiving notice and instructions.
• Tribal Subject-Matter Jurisdiction. Tanana had inherent authority to adjudicate the welfare of its citizen-children, and could accept a transfer from Koyukuk; both children were members or eligible for membership.
• Personal Jurisdiction. The Court refused to require “minimum contacts” analysis; an Indian parent’s personal jurisdiction challenges must be raised (and exhausted) in tribal court first.
• Domestic Violence Context. The precipitating August 2023 stabbing incident placed the matter squarely within ICWA; the Court declined to “paternalistically second-guess” tribal fact finding.
• Outcome. Superior-court order registering the tribal decree is affirmed; Father’s state-court custody order remains subject to tribal placement.

3. Analysis

3.1 Precedents Cited and Their Influence

1. John v. Baker (John I, 1999; John II, 2001) – Recognised Alaska tribes’ inherent authority over internal child custody disputes; introduced comity doctrine for tribal judgments not covered by ICWA. Here, the Court distinguishes John II; because Tanana’s order falls under ICWA, comity is unnecessary—full faith and credit suffices.
2. State v. Native Village of Tanana (2011) – Confirmed tribal jurisdiction to initiate child-protection cases and receive transfers from state court. The Court analogises to inter-tribal transfers.
3. Simmonds v. Parks (2014) – Adopted the federal exhaustion doctrine for ICWA child-custody matters; emphasised that failure to appeal in tribal court bars collateral attack. This case is the controlling template for the exhaustion holding.
4. Starr v. George (2008) – Reiterated deference to tribal proceedings and burden on challenger to show constitutional infirmity; quoted in upholding registration.
5. Central Council of Tlingit & Haida Indian Tribes of Alaska v. State (2016) – Affirmed tribes’ inherent “core” power over child protection; cited to validate Tanana’s subject-matter jurisdiction.

3.2 Court’s Legal Reasoning

The Court’s pathway proceeds in three logical steps:

1. Identify the Statutory Framework. ICWA §1911(d) compels state courts to give “full faith and credit” to tribal “child custody proceedings.” The Tanana order met the statutory definition because it removed the children from their parents and placed them with a grandmother without immediate right of return.
2. Apply CINA Rule 24. Registration is mandatory unless the objector proves one of the enumerated exceptions. Father carried the burden.
3. Impose Exhaustion Requirement. Because Father’s objection was really a jurisdictional/due-process challenge, Simmonds dictates exhaustion of tribal appellate remedies.
   – No evidence of tribal bad faith, futility, or lack of an appellate mechanism.
   – Father had explicit notice of hearing dates and the procedure to seek review.
   – His refusal to “accept service” and to participate does not create an exception.

3.3 Anticipated Impact

• Strengthening Tribal Autonomy. The decision underscores that Alaska tribes can both originate and accept transfers of child-protection cases without state-court second-guessing, provided ICWA procedures and due process safeguards are observed.
• Practical Guidance. Attorneys representing parents must advise clients to litigate jurisdictional objections within the tribal forum first; ignoring tribal process risks preclusion.
• Inter-Tribal Cooperation. The Court implicitly validates inter-tribal transfers, promoting flexibility when safety concerns (e.g., absence of VPSO) warrant venue changes.
• Reduced Forum-Shopping. Parents can no longer leverage parallel state proceedings to out-maneuver tribal child-protection orders once full faith and credit applies.
• Memorandum but Persuasive. Although issued as a Rule 214(d) memorandum, the analysis will carry persuasive weight in Alaska’s trial courts and may influence unpublished decisions elsewhere.

4. Complex Concepts Simplified

ICWA (Indian Child Welfare Act)

Federal law (1978) that sets minimum standards for the removal and placement of Indian children and affirms tribal jurisdiction over child-custody matters involving their members.

Child Custody Proceeding (under ICWA)

Includes not only divorce or adoption cases but also “foster-care placement” where a child is taken from the parent and the parent cannot simply demand return.

Full Faith and Credit

Heightened obligation—in this context, state courts must enforce qualifying tribal child-custody orders as if they were their own, unless narrow statutory exceptions apply.

Comity

A more discretionary, reciprocity-based respect for judgments of another sovereign. ICWA displaces comity with mandatory full faith and credit for covered cases.

Exhaustion of Tribal Remedies

Before challenging a tribal court decision in state or federal court, the party must use available tribal appellate procedures unless bad faith, futility, or lack of a forum is shown.

CINA Rule 24 (Alaska)

The procedural rule governing registration and confirmation of tribal court child-custody orders. It presumes validity and sets three narrow grounds for objection.

Subject-Matter v. Personal Jurisdiction

Subject-Matter – Court’s authority over the type of case (here, child protection involving tribal children).
Personal – Court’s authority over the individual litigants. The Court held those issues must be raised first in tribal court.

5. Conclusion

J.A. v. Native Village of Tanana is a clear reaffirmation of Alaska’s commitment to the dual principles of tribal sovereignty and the protective purpose of ICWA. By insisting on exhaustion and by giving unqualified full faith and credit to Tanana’s child-custody order, the Alaska Supreme Court:

• Reinforces that tribes, not state courts, are the primary arbiters of their children’s welfare;
• Closes procedural loopholes that have encouraged forum-shopping and jurisdictional ambushes in custody disputes involving Native children;
• Provides practitioners with a concise roadmap—participate first, appeal within, then litigate without—when contesting tribal court authority.

While labelled a non-precedential memorandum, the opinion crystallises extant jurisprudence and will undoubtedly influence both litigants and courts confronting similar jurisdictional cross-currents. Parents and counsel are now on firm notice: respect the tribal forum, exhaust its processes, or risk forfeiting your challenge.