## Facts

- The Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians generated revenue from casino operations and made profit-sharing payments to enrolled members called per capita distributions.
- A mother filed a child-support action against the father in the Cherokee Court of Indian Offenses.
- The case was transferred to the Cherokee Court.
- The mother and father entered a consent order requiring the father to pay $50 per month in child support.
- The consent order also allowed a garnishment of $1,800 from the father’s per capita distribution to satisfy child-support arrears.
- The father later received a 20–25 year prison sentence for sexual abuse of his child.
- After the father’s incarceration, the mother moved for distribution of the father’s per capita distribution to satisfy child-support obligations.
- The father filed a motion to dismiss the proceeding.
- After a hearing, the trial court denied the father’s motion to dismiss and granted the mother’s motion for distribution of the per capita funds.
- The father appealed to the Cherokee Supreme Court.

## Issues

1. Whether, under Cherokee Code § 110-2A(b)(3), the Cherokee Court could order distribution of an enrolled member’s per capita payments to satisfy child-support obligations.
2. Whether the father’s incarceration required dismissal or otherwise barred the requested distribution of per capita funds for child support.

## Decision

- The Cherokee Supreme Court affirmed.
- The court upheld the trial court’s denial of the father’s motion to dismiss.
- The court upheld the order granting the mother’s motion for distribution of the father’s per capita payments to satisfy child-support obligations.

## Legal Principles

- Cherokee Code § 110-2A(b)(3) authorizes use of a member’s per capita distributions to satisfy child-support obligations.
- A tribal court may enforce child-support obligations through an order directing distribution of per capita payments that are controlled and disbursed under tribal law.
- A support obligor’s incarceration does not, by itself, eliminate enforceable child-support obligations where a reachable source of funds exists, including per capita distributions.
- A prior consent support order supports continued enforcement of child-support duties, including collection from per capita distributions when authorized by tribal law.

## Conclusion

The Cherokee Supreme Court affirmed the trial court’s refusal to dismiss the child-support proceeding and approved directing the father’s per capita casino distributions to satisfy child-support obligations under Cherokee Code § 110-2A(b)(3), notwithstanding the father’s incarceration.


State ex rel. Maney v. Maney, 2005 WL 6438072 (2005)