## Facts

- A child became the subject of a dependency/Youth in Need of Care (YNC) matter in Tulalip Tribal Court in November 2011.
- The child was first placed in the temporary custody of the maternal grandmother (D.B.).
- Tulalip Tribes social services, beda?chelh, later moved the child to the paternal grandparents (M.S. and O.S.) because they lived on the Tulalip Reservation.
- While the child was with the paternal grandparents, they took the child to the parents’ home; a domestic-violence incident occurred there, and the paternal grandparents attempted to get the mother to leave before police arrived.
- After that incident, beda?chelh moved custody back to the maternal grandmother.
- The child remained with the maternal grandmother for about one and a half years.
- Later, after the maternal grandmother permitted the parents to visit the child, beda?chelh again moved custody to the paternal grandparents.
- The maternal grandmother and the paternal grandparents filed competing petitions seeking guardianship of the child.
- beda?chelh evaluated both homes and concluded both sets of grandparents were eligible to serve as guardians, but did not recommend one placement over the other.
- The trial court appointed a guardian ad litem (GAL) to investigate and report on the child’s best interests.
- The GAL submitted a detailed report recommending that the maternal grandmother be appointed guardian.
- The trial court granted both guardianship petitions and ordered that physical custody be divided between the maternal grandmother and the paternal grandparents, leaving the parties to work out a schedule.
- The maternal grandmother appealed the guardianship order.

## Issues

1. Whether the trial court abused its discretion by granting joint guardianship and dividing custody without addressing the evidence and recommendations in the GAL’s report under the governing best-interests standard.
2. Whether the trial court’s guardianship order could stand where the record did not show the court applied the proper legal standard to the GAL’s report and recommendations.

## Decision

- The Tulalip Tribal Court of Appeals reversed in part and remanded.
- The majority held the trial court abused its discretion because it did not address evidence presented in the GAL report and did not apply the appropriate legal standard to the GAL’s report and recommendations when entering a joint-guardianship/shared-custody order.
- A dissenting justice would have affirmed, concluding the order was supported by substantial evidence and that appellate review should defer to the trial court’s fact-finding.

## Legal Principles

- Guardianship determinations arising from a YNC/dependency context are reviewed for abuse of discretion.
- A court abuses its discretion when it applies the wrong legal standard or fails to consider material evidence bearing on the child’s best interests.
- A GAL’s report and recommendations are not automatically controlling, but they are record evidence that the trial court must consider as part of the best-interests decision.
- When the trial court’s order departs from, or does not discuss, a GAL’s detailed recommendations, the record must still show how the court evaluated the report and reached a best-interests determination.
- Ordering joint guardianship or divided physical custody is not barred as a matter of law, but it must be supported by a reasoned best-interests analysis tied to the evidence, rather than serving as an unexplained compromise.

## Conclusion

The Court of Appeals partially reversed and remanded because the trial court granted joint guardianship and divided physical custody without showing that it evaluated the GAL’s detailed report or applied the proper best-interests framework, which the majority treated as an abuse of discretion.


In re the Guardianship of a Tulalip Minor, 13 NICS App. 12 (2015)