## Facts

- Two Alaska Native parents separated and informally co-parented their two children.
- The father was a member of the Native Village of Northway; the mother was a member of the Native Village of Mentasta.
- The father petitioned the Northway Tribal Court for custody; the mother participated and expressly consented to the tribal court’s jurisdiction.
- The Northway Tribal Court entered an order granting shared custody.
- After the tribal judgment, the father filed an identical custody action in Alaska superior court.
- The mother moved to dismiss based on the prior tribal proceedings; the superior court denied dismissal and awarded the father primary physical custody, citing (among other reasons) the parents’ different tribal affiliations and perceived state advantages in handling custody matters.
- The mother appealed, arguing that the tribe had inherent authority to adjudicate custody between tribal members and that the state court should not displace the tribal judgment without proper recognition analysis.

## Issues

1. Whether a federally recognized Alaska Native tribe has inherent sovereign adjudicatory authority to decide a child custody dispute between tribal members when the dispute arises outside “Indian country.”
2. Whether an Alaska state court, faced with a prior tribal custody judgment between the same parties on the same subject, must evaluate recognition of that judgment under comity before proceeding.

## Decision

- The Alaska Supreme Court reversed the superior court’s refusal to dismiss and its custody award.
- The court held that federally recognized Alaska Native tribes possess inherent sovereign authority to adjudicate child custody disputes between their members, even outside Indian country.
- The court remanded for the superior court to determine, under comity, whether the tribal custody order should be recognized.
- Certiorari was denied by the U.S. Supreme Court.

## Legal Principles

- Federally recognized tribes retain inherent sovereignty over internal domestic relations among their members, including adjudication of child custody.
- In Alaska, tribal adjudicatory authority over member-to-member domestic relations is not categorically dependent on the existence of Indian country.
- Neither the Indian Child Welfare Act nor Public Law 280 was treated as eliminating tribal power to decide member custody disputes under these circumstances.
- When a tribal court has already rendered a custody judgment, state courts must address recognition through comity, focusing on the tribal court’s jurisdiction and basic procedural fairness, rather than ignoring the judgment and retrying the merits.

## Conclusion

The decision recognized Alaska Native tribes’ inherent authority to adjudicate child custody disputes between tribal members outside Indian country and required Alaska courts to evaluate prior tribal custody judgments under comity before proceeding with duplicative state litigation.


John v. Baker, 982 P.2d 738 (Alaska 1999), cert. denied, 528 U.S. 1182 (2000)