Background
G.L.W., whose mother is an enrolled member of the Ho-Chunk Nation, was removed from his parents’ custody after his birth in 2021 and later placed with his maternal aunt and uncle. Because G.L.W. was eligible for tribal enrollment, the federal and Wisconsin Indian Child Welfare Acts applied to child-custody proceedings involving him.
Monroe County initiated a guardianship case in circuit court in 2022, and that case was transferred to the Ho-Chunk Nation tribal court in 2023. While it remained pending there, the County filed a new circuit-court guardianship petition in 2024, again nominating the aunt and uncle. Although G.L.B. referred to a potential jurisdictional objection and reserved the possibility of raising one later, he never asked the circuit court to dismiss or transfer the new case. The tribal court later appeared to dismiss the earlier proceeding, and the circuit court appointed the aunt and uncle as guardians after a contested trial.
The Court’s Holding
The Court of Appeals affirmed without deciding the merits of G.L.B.’s arguments that the earlier transfer deprived the circuit court of authority, that full-faith-and-credit provisions prevented the new proceeding while the tribal case remained pending, or that the circuit court should have transferred the new case to tribal court. It held that G.L.B. forfeited all three arguments by failing to present them to the circuit court.
The court declined to overlook the forfeiture. Raising jurisdiction as a general topic and suggesting that an objection might be made later did not preserve the specific legal theories advanced on appeal. A timely objection would have allowed the circuit court and the parties to develop the factual record, refine the legal issues, and potentially coordinate with the tribal court or obtain an earlier formal dismissal of the older case.
Key Takeaways
- A party does not preserve an appellate argument merely by reserving the possibility of raising a jurisdictional objection later.
- Forfeiture focuses on whether the specific legal arguments were presented to the circuit court, not whether the general subject was mentioned.
- The court affirmed solely on forfeiture grounds and did not decide whether the circuit court or tribal court had exclusive or concurrent jurisdiction.
Why It Matters
The decision underscores that parties in proceedings governed by the Indian Child Welfare Act must timely and specifically raise objections concerning tribal jurisdiction, transfer, and full faith and credit. Even legal questions involving overlapping state and tribal proceedings may be forfeited when the circuit court is not given a fair opportunity to address them.
The opinion also cautions practitioners not to treat a generalized reservation of rights as a substitute for a motion or developed objection. Here, the failure to seek dismissal, transfer, reconsideration, or court-to-court communication prevented appellate review of the jurisdictional theories on their merits.