SRMT CSEU Case No._____ ______________
SRMT Tribal Court Docket No.____________________
Page 4 of 5
D: Petitioner has experienced extraordinary medical expenses for (name of child) ________________in the
E: □ Petitioner □ has □ has not experienced work related child care expenses in the amount of _________ and
□is□ is not requesting that the court order respondent to pay work related child care.(FSA Sec III 2B (v).
F: The petitioner □ is □ is not requesting that the respondent pay work related child care in the amount of
$ per .
Based on the facts stated under oath herein, this court has jurisdiction over this petition and the respondent
because [CHECK ALL THAT APPLY]:
□ I am, □ my child is, or□ my children listed below are enrolled members of the Saint Regis Mohawk Tribe.
□ I reside or am domiciled, □ my child resides or is domiciled, or□ my children listed below reside or are
domiciled within the territory of the Saint Regis Mohawk Tribe. (See No. 7 below.)
□ The respondent is an enrolled member of the Saint Regis Mohawk Tribe.
□ The respondent resides or is domiciled within the territory of the Saint Regis Mohawk Tribe.
□ The respondent has had minimum contacts with the Tribe and its territory and is subject to this court’s
personal jurisdiction based on the facts alleged in this petition.
10. Allegation of Tribal Interest in Exercising Jurisdiction over a non-member:
□ Because the respondent is a non-member I further allege that this court has personal jurisdiction over the
respondent because the Tribe has an interest in the protection of its members. Under the standard set forth in
Montana v. United States, 450 U.S. 544 (1981), a tribe may regulate the activities of a non-member in two
circumstances—the nonmember has entered into a consensual relationship with the Tribe or with its members
by contract or other arrangements, or when the nonmembers conduct is “demonstrably serious and imperils the
political integrity, the economic security, or the health and welfare of the Tribe.” 450 U.S. at 565-566.
Congress has held that the welfare of Indian children is of utmost importance to a tribe, see Indian Child
Welfare Act, 25 U.S.C. § 1901(3), “there is no resource that is more vital to the continued existence and
integrity of Indian tribes that their children....”
The Saint Regis Mohawk Tribe has a vital interest in the health and welfare of that child and the exercise of
jurisdiction over the respondent for the establishment of paternity [and/or] child support falls well within the
Tribe’s authority over non-members under the second Montana exception. In this way the Tribe may protect
the health and welfare of the Tribe’s children. See Duncan v. Ross, 2006 WL 7137862 (Ft. Peck Ct. of Appeals
2006)(court had jurisdiction over paternity action under second Montana exception where one party a non-
Indian living off-reservation and one party non-member but Indian living on-reservation); Walker v. Tiger, 10
Okla Tribe 650, 2004 WL 7081139, *5 (S.Ct. Muscogee Nation 2004)(court may exercise jurisdiction over
child custody in a divorce proceeding because “protective orders for the welfare of tribal members is essential