2026 WL 250557
Family Court, New York,
Columbia County.

In the Matter of a Proceeding Under Article 6 of the New York State Family Court Act K.J., Petitioner,
v.
S.A., Respondent.

Docket No. V-00152-24
|
Decided on January 15, 2026

FACTS

On or around March 20, 2024, S. A. filed a petition for a domestic violence protection order and custody of Child W. (DOB XX/XX/22) with the Aneth Court of the Navajo Nation. On the same day she obtained an ex parte order of protection against K. J. which directed him to stay away from S. A. and their daughter Child W., and which gave her temporary custody of the child.

K. J. was personally served with S. A.’s petition on March 26, 2024, in Coeymans, New York, and responded with a written request for a telephone appearance on March 29, 2024. In writing to the Aneth Court, K. J. responded to some of the allegations in S. A.’s petition. He was granted permission to appear telephonically in Aneth Court in an Order dated April 1, 20241. K. J. called Aneth Court to follow up on his request for a telephone appearance on April 1, and was told to be mindful of the time difference.

On March 27, 2024, K. J. petitioned for ex-parte emergency relief in Columbia County Court. K. J. presented himself as the only parent within the state of New York available to take custody of the infant Child W. He did not indicate the child Child W. was a Native American Child on the official New York State Court form. In his petition, he stated that the family lived at XXX, Hudson, New York.

The matter came on for a hearing on March 29, 2024. S. A. was not present, having been served via email on March 28, 2024. The Columbia County Family Court, on the record before it, granted temporary custody of the infant Child W. to K. J. on March 29, 2024, finding, upon the urging of the Attorney for the Child, that “the State of Utah2 did not have jurisdiction over the child and the father at the time a protective order was issued and the Utah Court failed to comply with the provisions of the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction Enforcement Act and as such does not have jurisdiction over the child in this case.”

On April 3, 2024, a hearing was held in the Aneth Judicial District Family Court of the Navajo Nation at which K. J. did not appear. Judge Irene Black proceeded in his absence, as he had been given notice and opportunity to appear. Judge Black made findings of fact that domestic abuse had taken place, and determined that custody of Child W. should be granted to S. A.

In a decision and order dated April 3, 2024, Judge Black found, inter alia, that S. A. and K. J. lived in Ravena, New York with the child Child W., until K. J. put S. A. on a plane without Child W., to send her back to the Navajo Nation on March 9, 2024. Judge Black also found that K. J. “was not available to make a declaration of paternity, therefore he is deemed to be a “legal stranger,” to the child.”

Notably, in her April 3, 2024 decision, Judge Black determined that the Navajo Nation, Aneth Judicial District Family Court had jurisdiction pursuant to the Navajo Nation Code, citing Miles v. Chinle Family Court, 9 Nav. R. 182, 184 (Nav. Sup. Ct. 2008).3

On May 13, 2024, S. A. appeared with counsel and the Columbia County Court issued another temporary order granting video contact with the child, specifying that such contact will not violate the protective order issued by the Navajo Nation Family Court.

Memorandums of Law were submitted to Columbia County Family Court by the counsel for K. J. on June 11, 2024; S. A. on June 11, 2024; and the infant Child W. on June 11, 2024, with respect to the jurisdictional issues present in this case.

On June 11, 2024, K. J. filed an amended custody petition under the UCCJEA for custody of Child W.

Rather than issue a decision on this matter without consulting the Judge presiding in the Aneth District Family Court, the matter was postponed for mediation with the Third Judicial District. Unfortunately, mediation on September 10, 2024 was not fruitful.

The matter was postponed further to petition the Aneth District Family Court to modify its order of protection. In an Order from the bench on November 5, 2025, and reduced to writing in January 6, 2026, Judge Black modified the Domestic Abuse Protection Order to allow contact between the parties to facilitate S. A.’s contact with the child. Judge Black again found that “This Court [Aneth District Family Court] has continuing personal and subject-matter jurisdiction over the parties and the cause of action.”

It must be noted here that S. A. has had extremely limited contact with her three year old child since March 9, 2024. It appears that K. J. has made no or minimal efforts to encourage and foster a close and loving relationship between S. A. and their daughter and that phone calls between S. A. and Child W. have been unduly restricted.

On January 13, 2026, the matter came on for a conference after mediation on January 12, 2026. After a conference at which extensive oral argument was heard, the Columbia County Family Court determined that pending a conference with Judge Black pursuant to DRL §§ 76-c(4) and 76(e) that S. A. should have residential custody of Child W.

This Court has reviewed and considered the protected case file as provided by the Aneth District Family Court pursuant to DRL § 76-e(2).

On January 15, 2025, the Hon. Judge Irene S. Black and the Hon. Judge Michael C. Howard conferenced the matter pursuant to the Domestic Relations Law §§ 76-c, 76-e to determine the safety of the child and the appropriateness of the respective forums. Judge Black indicated that she issued a permanent custody order, and that the Navajo Nation retains jurisdiction of Navajo children.

LAW

Jurisdictional Question: Application of the UCCJEA or the Navajo Nation Code

The UCCJEA states:

a court of this state has jurisdiction to make an initial child custody determination only if:

(a) this state is the home state of the child on the date of the commencement of the proceeding, or was the home state of the child within six months before the commencement of the proceeding and the child is absent from this state but a parent or person acting as a parent continues to live in this state. DRL § 76

The Navajo Nation has not adopted the UCCJEA. The Navajo Nation Code states “The Family Court may hear child custody matters involving Navajo children wherever they may arise.” 9 N.N.C. § 1055(d). Jurisdiction is extended to all children who are or could be enrolled members of the Navajo Nation, without regard to their domicile. The Supreme Court of the Navajo Nation has held:

Jurisdiction over matters concerning our children who live outside the reservation is provided by 7 N.N.C. § 253a(F) as arising from our inherent sovereign right to watch over the upbringing of tribal children as a matter of the health, safety and welfare of the Nation as a whole. Congress has expressed that “there is no resource that is more vital to the continued existence and integrity of Indian tribes than their children.” 25 U.S.C. § 1901(3). The Navajo Nation has a “legitimate and compelling interest” in the welfare of our children within our jurisdiction. Resolution CO—38—11, Section 2(1) (October 26, 2011). Our courts’ jurisdiction over matters involving Navajo children wherever they may reside is, furthermore, in keeping with Diné bi beenahaz’áanii, which teaches that our children occupy a space in Navajo culture that can best be described as holy or sacred. See EXC v. Kayenta District Court, 9 Am. Tribal Law 176, 187—88 (Nav.Sup.Ct.2010). Federal law recognizes that reservation status is not a requirement of tribal jurisdiction because “[a] Tribe’s authority over its reservation or Indian country is incidental to its authority over its members.” Kaltag Tribal Council v. Jackson, 344 Fed.Appx. 324 (9th Cir. 2009) Bahe v. Platero, No. SC-CV-48-12, 2012 WL 6775428 (Navajo Dec. 20, 2012)

Domestic Relations Law 75-c dictates that a New York State Court must recognize and enforce a child custody determination made by a tribe when it is made in substantial conformity with the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act (UCCJEA). The Indian Child Welfare Act requires states to give full faith and credit to “judicial proceedings of any Indian tribe applicable to Indian Child Custody proceedings.” 25 USC 1911(d).

Jurisdictional Question: Application of Indian Child Welfare Act

The federal government gives exclusive jurisdiction over child custody proceedings to an Indian tribe in the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA). “An Indian tribe shall have jurisdiction exclusive as to any State over any child custody proceeding involving an Indian child who resides or is domiciled within the reservation of such tribe, except where such jurisdiction is otherwise vested in the State by existing Federal law. Where an Indian child is a ward of a tribal court, the Indian tribe shall retain exclusive jurisdiction, notwithstanding the residence or domicile of the child.” 25 USC 1911(a).

Child custody proceeding is defined in ICWA to

mean and include—

(i) “foster care placement” which shall mean any action removing an Indian child from its parent or Indian custodian for temporary placement in a foster home or institution or the home of a guardian or conservator where the parent or Indian custodian cannot have the child returned upon demand, but where parental rights have not been terminated. 25 U.S.C.A. § 1903(1)(I) (emphasis added)

“Parent” is defined in ICWA as

Any biological parent or parents of an Indian child or any Indian person who has lawfully adopted an Indian child, including adoptions under tribal law or custom. It does not include the unwed father where paternity has not been acknowledged or established. 25 U.S.C.A. § 1903 (9).

The federal regulations giving effect to the Indian Child Welfare Act state that ICWA applies when an Indian child is the subject of an emergency proceeding. 25 CFR 23.103(a)(2). The same enabling regulations define “emergency proceeding” as “any court action that involves and emergency removal or emergency placement of an Indian Child.” 25 C.F.R. 23.2. However, ICWA expressly does not apply to “an award of custody of the Indian child to one of the parents including, but not limited to, an award in a divorce proceeding.” 25 C.F.R. 23.103(b)(3).

The Montana Supreme Court found that ICWA applied where a Native American mother consented to a parenting plan which awarded the paternal grandparents custody, stating

The Stipulated Parenting Plan that Mother signed in 2017 plainly “operate[d] to prohibit the [children’s] parent ... from regaining custody of the [children] upon demand.” 25 C.F.R. § 23.103(b)(4); 25 U.S.C. § 1903(1) (i). It required Parents to move for modification of custody or visitation rights and to prove to the trial court that their proposed change satisfied the best-interest standards Montana law requires for determining a parenting plan. Section 40-4-212, MCA. The trial court entered the Stipulated Parenting Plan as an order of the court, and Parents were bound by its terms. The ensuing litigation well demonstrates that Mother could not simply pick up the children from Grandparents and take them home. Under the clear definition of “child custody proceeding,” ICWA governs the parties’ dispute in this case. In re L.R.J., 411 Mont 149, 155-56, 523 P.3d 22, 27 (2023).

In the same vein, S. A. has been prohibited from obtaining custody of her child without submitting to the jurisdiction of Columbia County Family Court. She has been unable to regain custody of Child W. “on demand,” but instead must petition the Columbia County Family Court to make a best interest determination. The fact that K. J. has been determined to be a legal stranger to the child Child W. by Judge Black further militates in favor of application of the Indian Child Welfare Act.

Jurisdictional Issue: Priority of Jursidiction

New York State Court Rules state “In any proceeding in which the custody of a child is to be determined, the petition shall set forth whether the child is a Native American child subject to the Indian Child Welfare Act of 1978 (25 USC 1901 - 1963) and the court shall proceed further, as appropriate, in accordance with the provisions of that act.” 22 NYCRR 205.51

The United States Congress has determined that “that there is no resource that is more vital to the continued existence and integrity of Indian tribes than their children and that the United States has a direct interest, as trustee, in protecting Indian children who are members of or are eligible for membership in an Indian tribe.” 25 U.S.C. § 1901(3).

The Mashantucket Pequot Tribal Court has held “[w]hile state jurisdiction is based on residency, tribal jurisdiction is based on the relationship between tribal members and their tribe even if the members do not live on the reservation. The U.S. Supreme Court has recognized that tribes have jurisdiction over their members as well as their territory.” Father J. v. Mother A., 6 Mash. Rep 297 (2015), citing United States v. Mazurie, 419 U.S. 544 (1975).

The Third Department, Appellate Division has upheld a New York State Court’s declination to exercise jurisdiction of a child custody matter where simultaneous proceedings were pending in the Pawnee Nation and in St. Lawrence County Family Court. Kawisiiotha N. v. Arthur O., 170 AD3d 1445 (3d Dep’t 2019).

CONCLUSION

S. A. filed her petition first in time in the Aneth District Court of the Navajo Nation. K. J. was given notice and opportunity to be heard, having been personally served and requesting to appear telephonically.

The Domestic Abuse Protection Order issued by the Aneth District Court is required to be given full faith and credit and enforcement under 18 USC § 2265.

This Court finds that the Indian Child Welfare Act applies to this family, as the matter came before the Columbia County Family Court as an emergency petition, with the de facto result of depriving a Native American parent custody. The Court finds that no threat of harm to the child exists.

This Court finds that the proceedings in the Navajo Nation Court substantially comply with the provisions of the UCCJEA, regardless of the residency requirements contained in the UCCJEA. The statutes that govern personal and subject matter jurisdiction of child custody matters in the Navajo Nation are no less valid than those adopted by the states of the United States of America. The Court further finds the Navajo Nation has appropriately acted to exercise jurisdiction over this custody matter.

The Court declines to exercise jurisdiction, and transfers all issues, to the extent that they are before the Court, to the Aneth District Court of the Navajo Nation.

This is the Decision and Order of the Court.

So Ordered!

All Citations
--- N.Y.S.3d ----, 2026 WL 250557, 2026 N.Y. Slip Op. 26013

Footnotes
1	In Judge Black’s Order granting telephone appearance, she finds “[t]his Court has personal and subject-matter jurisdiction.”
2	The State of Utah is not actually involved in the jurisdictional dispute. In fact, it is the Navajo Nation that has assumed jurisdiction over this family.
3	“The Family Court may hear child custody matters involving Navajo children wherever they may arise.” 9 N.N.C. § 1055(D).