Putting Our Minds Together for Our Children

Meet Chief Judge Michael Petoskey and Chief Judge Bryan Newland

[This is the first article in a three-part series focusing on continued improvements to cross-court understanding between state and tribal courts through education and collaboration.]

This article features perspectives from the Pokagon Band
of Potawatomi Indians and the Bay Mills Indian Community.

Interacting with Native American Indian tribal courts on child support issues can present unique challenges, much like intergovernmental work, because each jurisdiction works on shared matters from a different set of rules. Over a century ago, the Lakota Sioux chief Sitting Bull said, “Let us put our minds together and see what kind of life we can make for our children.”[1]

Tribal and state courts can accomplish a lot by working together when the relationships are based upon mutual trust, respect, and professionalism.[2] In Michigan, there are 12 federally-recognized tribes. Two tribal court judges provided The Pundit with some insight into custody, parenting time, and child support matters from a tribal court perspective.

Chief Judge Michael Petoskey is currently serving as Chief Judge for both the Pokagon Band of Potawatomi Indians and the Match-E-Be-Nash-She-Wish Band of Pottawatomi Indians.

Chief Judge Bryan Newland presides over the Bay Mills Tribal Court as Chief Judge.

Both chief judges noted that a key difference between tribal courts and state circuit courts is that a tribal court judge’s docket consists of all types of cases – criminal and civil. As a newer judge, Bay Mills Chief Judge Newland described the adjustment to hearing family law cases on his docket interspersed between other matters as “difficult from both an emotional and technical knowledge standpoint.”

Tribal court duties regarding child support matters:

• Establishing child support in new cases;
• Recognizing and enforcing foreign court child support orders (from state courts in Michigan and other states, as well as from other tribal courts);
• Collecting payments for combined child support and spousal support withholding orders;
• Delinquent child support (arrears) collections from per capita distributions.

Chief Judge Petoskey and the Pokagon Band’s court administrator Stephen Rambeaux provided some statistics that illustrate the volume of child support work a tribe may face. The Pokagon Band has withheld child support from employees—both of its casinos and governmental operations—for orders originating from 19 different states.

During the past 10 years, these collections total just over $4.7 million (as of August 2017). In Michigan alone, the Pokagon Band’s court has recognized cases from 27 different counties, a task similar to registering an intergovernmental case. The Pokagon Band also withholds from its tribal members’ per capita payments to satisfy arrearages. During the past 10 years, these arrears payments have impacted cases in 23 Michigan counties and total almost $1.4 million.

Chief Judge Petoskey cautioned that the collections figures reported here are the result of just one tribe’s work, and that other tribes around the state are also recognizing and enforcing support orders.

Chief Judge Petoskey also noted that a vast majority of casino employees are nonnative, however tribes spend a great deal of time and effort on implementing these employees’ withholding orders.[3]

Why do tribal courts and state courts follow different rules?

Tribes are sovereign nations. “Sovereignty” means the power to independently self-govern, including making, executing, and applying laws within tribal territory; imposing and collecting taxes; forming treaties or engaging in commerce; and forming government-to-government relations with other sovereign governments. Because tribes are sovereign, each tribe holds the authority to rule over its citizens, which includes judicial rulings.

In child support matters, there is an interplay of tribal court jurisdiction and state court jurisdiction pursuant to the federal “Full Faith and Credit” mandate,[4] particularly when one parent resides on tribal land and the other parent does not.

In addition, the Michigan Supreme Court adopted a court rule in 1996 establishing “comity” for tribal court orders,[5] meaning that tribal court judgments from federally recognized tribes are presumed valid and must be recognized as such by Michigan courts, as long as the tribal court also agrees to recognize the state’s judgments.

This important development was a product of the 1992 Michigan Tribal Court State Court Forum, which was established by Chief Judge Petoskey and retired Michigan Supreme Court Justice Michael Cavanagh. The current Michigan Tribal State Federal Judicial Forum was established in 2014, and continues the spirit of cross-jurisdictional collaboration. This is the focus of a recent Michigan Supreme Court report called, “Michigan’s Judiciary Success Stories: How Tribal, State, and Federal Courts Are Collaborating to Benefit Michigan Families.”

Despite following different rules, state courts and tribal courts jointly value collaboration to promote children’s best interests. As Justice Cavanagh once said, “The care and support of children is a common issue that transcends jurisdictional boundaries.”

Meet Chief Judge Petoskey

Chief Judge Michael Petoskey

Chief Judge Michael Petoskey was first appointed to a chief judgeship in 1985 for his own tribe, the Grand Traverse Band of Ottawa and Chippewa Indians. In total, Chief Judge Petoskey has served on the bench of each of the seven tribes located in the lower peninsula of Michigan. He earned his bachelor’s degree from Michigan State University (MSU) and his law degree from the University of New Mexico School of Law. Chief Judge Petoskey is also a Vietnam veteran.

Chief Judge Petoskey appreciates the different world view of tribes, especially pertaining to children. Penojé is the Potawatomi word for baby or young child and literally translates to “a young spirit coming forth.” Tribes inherently treat children not as property of the parents, but as young spirits dependent upon adults for care and nurturing. This is reflected in tribal justice systems’ operations, procedures, and fairness.

Meet Chief Judge Newland

Chief Judge Bryan Newland

Chief Judge Bryan Newland is a citizen of the Bay Mills Indian Community (Ojibwe) and has been presiding over the Bay Mills Tribal Court since 2013. He previously worked for the United States Department of the Interior as senior policy advisor on Indian Affairs. He earned his bachelor’s degree from MSU and law degree from the MSU College of Law. He teaches tribal law courses at MSU as an adjunct professor.

One of Chief Judge Newland’s goals is to promote access to justice in the Bay Mills Community by making the tribal court easy to use for lawyers and non-lawyers alike. When he was a candidate for the judgeship, he said, “I believe that the law can be used as a positive force for change, and that a well-functioning legal system can be a great asset to tribal communities. I have built my career on these beliefs.”

Future articles in this series will focus on how tribal courts operate differently from state courts, examples of effective collaboration and areas for improvement.

---

[1] “Effective Leadership for Tribal Child Welfare,” publication of the National Indian Child Welfare Association.
[2] The August 2013 edition of The Pundit includes an article titled “Contributing to the Support of Children: Exposing Invisible Common Ground Between State and Tribal Courts.”
[3] More detail on this topic, including contact information and IWN process and requirements for each tribe, is available in the 2012 Pundit article, “Enforcing State Child Support Orders in Tribal Courts.”
[4] 28 U.S.C. § 1738 (2011), State and Territorial statutes and judicial proceedings; full faith and credit. Based on title 28, U.S.C., 1940 ed., §687.
[5] MCR 2.615 (1996), Enforcement of Tribal Judgments.