## Facts

- In 1995, Shawn Travis Eberhard and Angela M. Coontz Eberhard, both serving in the U.S. military and stationed in California, married and had a daughter.
- Shawn and the daughter were members of the Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe.
- In February 1996, Shawn filed for divorce and temporary custody in the Cheyenne River Sioux Tribal Court.
- The tribal court issued an order granting Shawn temporary custody.
- In March 1996, Angela filed for divorce and custody in a California state court.
- The California court asserted jurisdiction and issued an order awarding custody to Angela.
- In April 1996, Angela appeared in the tribal court, challenged the tribal court’s jurisdiction, and asked the tribal court to enforce the California custody order.
- The tribal trial court concluded it had jurisdiction over the divorce and custody dispute, but applied the Parental Kidnapping Prevention Act (PKPA), 28 U.S.C. § 1738A, treated California as the child’s “home state,” and treated the California order as controlling.
- Both parties appealed: Shawn argued the PKPA did not bind tribal courts because tribes are not expressly included in the PKPA’s definition of “State,” and Angela argued the tribal court lacked jurisdiction.

## Issues

1. Whether the PKPA’s full-faith-and-credit mandate for child-custody determinations applies in tribal court such that a tribal court must recognize and enforce a qualifying state custody order.
2. Whether the Cheyenne River Sioux tribal court had subject-matter and personal jurisdiction over a divorce and child-custody dispute involving a tribal-member parent, a nonmember parent, and a tribal-member child.
3. Whether the California custody order at issue was entitled to controlling effect under PKPA-type jurisdictional standards.

## Decision

- The Cheyenne River Sioux Court of Appeals upheld the tribal court’s authority to exercise jurisdiction over the divorce and custody proceeding involving a tribal member and a tribal-member child.
- The court rejected the argument that the PKPA can be ignored in tribal court solely because tribes are not expressly named as “States” in the statute’s definitions, and it treated PKPA full-faith-and-credit standards as governing whether a state custody order must be honored.
- Applying those standards to the record before it, the court did not treat the particular California temporary custody order as automatically binding on the tribal court, leaving room for the tribal forum to proceed consistent with PKPA requirements rather than simply defaulting to the California order.

## Legal Principles

- Tribal courts may hear divorce and child-custody matters involving tribal-member parents and tribal-member children, including disputes that also involve a nonmember spouse.
- In interstate (and state–tribal) custody conflicts, PKPA-type rules focus on whether the issuing court had qualifying jurisdiction—commonly tied to “home state” status—and whether procedural prerequisites were met.
- A tribal court may recognize that federal custody full-faith-and-credit rules apply, while still requiring a showing that the specific out-of-forum custody order meets the statutory conditions before giving it controlling effect.

## Conclusion

*Eberhard v. Eberhard* involved competing custody proceedings in tribal court and California state court after a military couple separated. The Cheyenne River Sioux Court of Appeals upheld tribal jurisdiction over the divorce and custody dispute and treated federal PKPA standards as applicable when deciding whether a state custody order must be honored in tribal court, but it did not simply enforce the California temporary custody order as controlling without satisfying the PKPA’s requirements.


Eberhard v. Eberhard, 24 Ind. L. Rep. 6059 (1997)