There shall be a preference for beda?chelh to engage families outside of the court process through voluntary intervention processes such as FIT. If court intervention or removal is necessary, beda?chelh shall work towards returning the child as soon as is practical and safe for the child. A parent may also voluntarily consent to court intervention.
(1) 
The Tulalip Tribal Court shall have jurisdiction over any proceeding arising under the Juvenile and Family Code and actions arising under the customs and traditions of the Tulalip Indian Tribal community affecting family or child welfare which involve:
(a) 
Any Indian child who resides or is domiciled on the Tulalip Reservation;
(b) 
Any child who is a member of, or is eligible for membership in, the Tulalip Tribes, regardless of the child’s residence or domicile;
(c) 
Any Indian child who has been placed in temporary care on the Tulalip Reservation or in any care facility licensed by the Tribes for placement of an Indian child; or
(d) 
Any child whose parent is an enrolled member of the Tulalip Tribes.
(2) 
The Tulalip Tribal Court shall have jurisdiction over adults in furtherance of its powers under this code. The Court may issue orders as are necessary for the welfare of children and families.
(3) 
Whenever State, Federal, or other Tribal Courts have jurisdiction over any of the matters provided for in this code, the Court shall have concurrent jurisdiction over the same matters, to the extent consistent with Federal law.
(4) 
The limitations on jurisdiction contained in this section are not intended to reflect the Tribes’ view as to the legally permissible limits of jurisdiction.
(Res. 2015-101. Formerly 4.05.270; Res. 2018-346; Res. 2020-554)
(1) 
Who May File as a Legal Intervener. The Indian child’s tribe or tribes, any relative, or other person who has established a significant familial relationship with the child may file a motion for intervention with the Court.
(a) 
Any relative or someone with a significant familial relationship with the child may be granted permissive intervention to be evaluated consistent with TTC § 2.10.060 and as long as intervention is in the best interest of the child.
(2) 
A child’s tribe or tribes may intervene as a matter of right at any point in the proceedings.
(3) 
Rights of Intervener. The Court shall determine, in the best interests of the child, what rights similar to those of a party should be extended to an intervener. Absent a showing of good cause, the rights of an intervener, other than an Indian tribe, shall be limited to information about the child which includes: notice of hearings, the ability to attend hearings regarding the child, to file and present motions and make written and oral statements to the Court. If good cause is found to expand the rights of an intervener, these rights may include, but are not limited to: the rights of discovery such as redacted reports about the child, counsel at their own expense, examination of the record and witnesses, placement, and visitation.
(4) 
Denying Intervention. If the Court denies intervention, but determines that an ongoing personal relationship exists and that visitation or contact rights are in the child’s best interest and are consistent with beda?chelh policy, the Court may grant visitation or contact rights to the person having the ongoing relationship. The Court may order temporary visitation rights under this section pending further order.
(5) 
Dismissal of Motion to Intervene.
(a) 
Other than by a tribe, a motion for intervention shall be dismissed unless the intervener’s motion provides proof of the existence of a significant familial relationship with the child or that they are the child’s relative. The motion to intervene must also allege facts to support that the intervention is in the best interests of the child.
(b) 
A motion for intervention by the child’s tribe may be dismissed only if the Court determines by clear and convincing evidence that intervention by the tribe is not in the best interest of the child.
(6) 
Dismissal of Intervention Status. Any party may motion the Court to remove a legal intervener from being a part of the dependency case if it is alleged and the Court finds that their intervention is no longer in the best interest of the child. A change in intervener status may be warranted if the child is removed from the legal intervener’s physical custody, the legal intervener is actively preventing reunification with one or more parent/guardian, or is actively working against beda?chelh’s reunification efforts.
(Res. 2015-101. Formerly 4.05.280; Res. 2015-497; Res. 2018-346; Res. 2020-554)
(1) 
General Rule. It shall be the practice of the Tribes to request transfer of a Tulalip child who is the subject of a State dependency proceeding to the Tulalip Tribal Court, pursuant to the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA), except when good cause exists to the contrary.
(2) 
Transfer of Case to Tulalip Tribal Court.
(a) 
Beda?chelh on its own or at the request of either parent or child, if the child is 12 or older and who is subject to the jurisdiction of the Tulalip Tribal Court, may file a petition with the Court to accept transfer of a case from another court. The Tulalip Tribal Court may accept or decline transfer by ex parte order.
(b) 
Cases transferred to Tulalip Tribal Court shall be accepted in the status received; legal and factual determinations made by a court prior to transfer of a case to the Tulalip Tribal Court shall not be judicially reviewed or redetermined unless the determinations made are in violation of Tribal law and/or policy.
(3) 
Transfer of a Case from Tulalip Tribal Court. Unless otherwise expressly provided in this chapter, the Court may transfer jurisdiction over a child to another court of competent jurisdiction upon motion filed and served on parties in accordance with civil service rules under Chapter 2.10 TTC.
(a) 
A party opposing transfer may object in writing to such order, requesting the transfer order be stayed, and within 14 days of the Court Clerk’s receipt of such written objection, the Court shall conduct a hearing to determine whether such transfer should take place.
(b) 
The transfer shall be subject to declination by the other court of competent jurisdiction. The other court shall have 30 days to affirmatively respond to a motion or order transferring jurisdiction. A failure to respond within the 30-day period shall be construed as a declination to accept transfer of the case.
(c) 
The Tulalip Tribal Court shall continue to exercise jurisdiction over a child during the pendency of any transfer under this chapter.
(4) 
There is a presumption that transfer to, or retention of, jurisdiction by the Tulalip Tribal Court is in the best interest of a child absent other evidence.
(Res. 2015-101. Formerly 4.05.290; Res. 2018-346; Res. 2020-554)
Proceedings involving two or more children may be heard at one consolidated hearing when the factual basis for jurisdiction is the same or similar, or for the convenience of all parties. Separate hearings may be held if it is reasonable to do so or upon request by any party. A legal guardianship or customary adoption proceeding shall have its own cause number, but any hearing may be consolidated with the underlying dependency.
(Res. 2015-101. Formerly 4.05.300; Res. 2018-346; Res. 2020-554)
Except as otherwise provided in this chapter, every document which is required or allowed to be served on a person shall be served consistent with TTC § 2.10.030(2). In addition, service may be by electronic means if that person consented in writing, in which event service is complete upon sending, but is not effective if the sender learns that it did not reach the person to be served. Service may also be delivered by any other means that the person consented to in writing.
(Res. 2015-101. Formerly 4.05.310; Res. 2018-346; Res. 2020-554)
Whenever a report is required for a hearing, it shall be filed and served on the parties 10 days prior to the court hearing unless otherwise noted. Any party objecting to the report may file a motion with the Court and the hearing may be continued for a short period of time.
(Res. 2015-101. Formerly 4.05.330; Res. 2018-346; Res. 2020-554)
(1) 
Any person who fails to obey a court order or subpoena may be cited by the Court to appear and show cause why s/he should not be held in contempt of court. If the Court finds contempt of court, the person may be subject to appropriate sanctions imposed by the Court, including the imposition of monetary terms, which may be satisfied by garnishment, including of per capita distributions.
(2) 
No Court records or other confidential information shall be viewed or disseminated except as provided herein. Any person who receives or views documents or other information pursuant to this provision shall maintain the confidentiality of such information. Failure to abide by this restriction shall constitute contempt of court or, if an employee of Tulalip Tribes, may be a violation of the Tulalip Tribal Government Employee Handbook.
(3) 
If an intervener violates confidentiality, then a hearing shall be set to determine whether that status should be revoked and sanctions imposed.
(4) 
If a parent has successfully completed their court-ordered services or otherwise has no known barriers for them to parent their own child and they choose not to parent their own child by refusing to accept an in-home dependency, beda?chelh may motion for a show cause or other hearing to address this matter in Court. After a hearing if the parent continues to refuse an in-home dependency they shall be fined $250.00 per month, with the money to be directed to the child’s placement. This action may be done in conjunction with or apart from contempt proceedings.
(Res. 2015-101. Formerly 4.50.340; Res. 2018-346; Res. 2020-554)