Court rejects Norwegian father’s bid to overturn custody order, finds tribe retains jurisdiction over Cherokee children regardless of international travel.
By Cara Cowan Watts, Cherokee411.com
CHEROKEE, N.C. — The Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians Supreme Court has affirmed a tribal court’s denial of a Norwegian father’s bid to overturn a custody order awarding physical custody of his two Cherokee children to their mother, ruling he waived his jurisdictional objections and failed to show the tribal court abused its discretion.
The opinion in Lambert v. Gjesdal, No. CSC 25-05, was filed July 28 and authored by Chief Justice Bradley B. Letts, joined by Associate Justice Robert C. Hunter and Associate Justice by designation Sharon Tracey Barrett.
Plaintiff-appellee Gina Louise Lambert is an enrolled member of the Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians and a resident of North Carolina domiciled on EBCI trust lands. Defendant-appellant Mads Gjesdal is a citizen and resident of Norway. The couple married in 2019 and have two children, both enrolled EBCI members, born in 2019 and 2020.
Family’s move to Norway sparked dispute
According to the opinion, the family lived in Cherokee from 2020 until January 2023, when Gjesdal relocated first to Charlotte and then, in April 2023, to Norway. Lambert and the children followed him to Norway in June 2023. The opinion states that on the day the family arrived, Gjesdal took the children to live with him and his parents.
A Norwegian district court entered a temporary order granting Gjesdal primary physical custody with limited visitation for Lambert. Both parties appealed to Norway’s Gulating Court of Appeal, which found the family’s stay in Norway was temporary in nature, that the children had not achieved what the opinion calls “normal residence” there, and concluded that American courts — a term of art the opinion notes was later disputed — had jurisdiction over the custody dispute.
Lambert filed a complaint for child custody in EBCI tribal court on Aug. 29, 2023, along with a motion for emergency ex parte custody, which the court granted. The complaint and a civil summons were served on Gjesdal in Norway on Jan. 3, 2024, in accordance with the Hague Convention on the Service Abroad of Judicial and Extra Judicial Documents in Civil and Commercial Matters. According to the opinion, Gjesdal did not file a responsive pleading or request an extension.
Tribal court entered custody order after father’s absence
The tribal court held a hearing on Lambert’s complaint on May 7, 2024, before Judge Monty C. Beck. Gjesdal did not appear and was not represented by counsel, despite having been served with notice of the hearing on April 26, 2024. Under Rule 8(d) of the Rules of Civil Procedure, he was deemed to have admitted the complaint’s material allegations.
Judge Beck entered a custody order on May 13, 2024, finding that EBCI territory was the children’s “home state” and that the tribal court had jurisdiction to decide the matter. The order awarded the parties shared parental responsibility and awarded Lambert physical custody, directed Gjesdal to turn over the children’s passports within seven days and to allow the children to return to the United States, and granted Gjesdal weekly communication and visitation rights. Gjesdal did not appeal that order.
Four months later, in September 2024, the tribal court received documents Gjesdal submitted by email while acting pro se. The court treated the filing as an appeal, but the Cherokee Supreme Court directed on Jan. 30, 2025, that it instead be treated as a motion for relief from judgment under Rule 60 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.
What followed was a lengthy process over the admissibility of dozens of exhibits Gjesdal sought to introduce, including emails, a signed letter and numerous attachments he characterized as “digital evidence.” The tribal court ultimately ruled that many of the documents were hearsay, lacked proper foundation, or amounted to an improper attempt to relitigate the underlying custody case under the guise of a Rule 60 motion. Judge Beck denied the motion for relief on Sept. 16, 2025, finding Gjesdal was not entitled to relief based on mistake, fraud or misconduct, or the court’s equitable powers, and that the tribal court had, and continued to have, jurisdiction over the case.
Supreme Court rejects all four arguments on appeal
On appeal, Gjesdal raised four issues: whether the tribal court abused its discretion by excluding nearly all his proffered evidence; whether it erred in denying relief under Rule 60(b)(3), (4) and (6); whether the May 2024 custody order was void for lack of personal jurisdiction; and whether the cumulative effect of the evidentiary exclusions denied him a fair hearing.
The Supreme Court rejected each argument. On the evidentiary issue, the court found Gjesdal failed to identify which specific records the tribal court wrongly excluded or to explain how their admission would have changed the outcome, calling the argument abandoned under North Carolina Rule of Appellate Procedure 28(b)(6), which governs proceedings in Cherokee courts under Cherokee Code Section 7-23(a).
On the Rule 60(b) claims, the court noted Judge Beck twice found that Gjesdal was properly served under the Hague Convention and had actual knowledge of the custody hearing well before it occurred, yet took no action to participate. The opinion quotes Gjesdal’s own explanation to the tribal court for not participating: “we don’t live in Cherokee.”
On personal jurisdiction, the Supreme Court held that Gjesdal waived the defense by participating in tribal court proceedings for roughly 13 months without raising the objection, only asserting it after losing on appeal. The court also noted Gjesdal sought to appear remotely for oral argument before the Supreme Court but was denied, as the court “in the twenty-five years of its existence has not permitted parties to appear and argue virtually.” He did not seek assistance from American counsel to represent his interests at any stage.
Finally, the court declined to apply the cumulative error doctrine, noting it has not previously extended that doctrine — typically applied in criminal cases — to civil matters such as child custody disputes.
Opinion reaffirms tribal sovereignty over domestic relations
The opinion devotes substantial discussion to the tribe’s authority to exercise jurisdiction over custody matters involving its citizens, even when a parent is a non-Indian foreign national and the family has lived abroad. Citing Cherokee Code Section 1-2(b), the court noted EBCI courts “shall exercise jurisdiction over the domestic relations of all individuals residing on Cherokee trust lands,” including child custody matters.
The court cited its own March 2026 decision in Carey v. Woodall, Nos. CSC 25-03 and 25-04, along with the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2023 decision in Haaland v. Brackeen and other federal and tribal court precedent, for the principle that tribes retain inherent sovereign power to regulate family law matters and domestic disputes involving their members, including in cases with non-Indian parties.
The Supreme Court affirmed the tribal court’s Sept. 16, 2025 order in full and denied a separate motion by Lambert to dismiss the appeal.
EDITOR’S NOTE: This article is based on Cherokee411.com’s review of the Cherokee Supreme Court’s published opinion in Lambert v. Gjesdal, CSC 25-05. Case citations to Norwegian court proceedings reflect characterizations made within the EBCI Supreme Court opinion; Cherokee411.com has not independently reviewed the underlying Norwegian court records. Please confirm before publication whether any additional comment from the parties or their counsel is desired.
