Not Reported in Am. Tribal L. Rptr., 2023 WL 7108278 (Eastern Cherokee Ct.)
Only the Westlaw citation is currently available.
Cherokee Court of the Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians.
 
Dylan Joseph Thompson, Plaintiff,
v.
Sabrina Leandra Smoker, and Chayton Heath Thompson, Defendant.
 
CASE NO.: CV 23-414
|
September 29, 2023

 

ORDER

MONTY C. BECK Chief Judge, Cherokee Court

This matter is before the Court on Defendant Smoker’s Motion to Dismiss, filed on July 31, 2023, seeking dismissal of Plaintiff’s Complaint pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1) of the Rules of Civil Procedure for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

A hearing on the motion was held on September 18, 2023, with Stephanie Lepre appearing for the Plaintiff, Gary Kirby appearing for Defendant Smoker, and Kelly Hebrank appearing for Defendant Thompson. The Court took the matter under advisement.

 

SUMMARY OF FACTS

Plaintiff, Dylan Thompson, filed a Verified Complaint to Establish Paternity, Compel Genetic Testing, and Child Custody on June 29, 2023, and named Sabrina Smoker and Chayton Thompson as Defendants. Plaintiff moves the Court to establish paternity of the minor child, M.W.T., pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. § 49-14 et seq. “as adopted by the Cherokee Code[.]” Compl. 2. The Court treats the Complaint as being brought pursuant to C.C. § 110-18(a).1 On July 31, 2023, Defendant Smoker filed an Answer and Request for Jury Trial and a Motion to Dismiss under Rule 12(b)(1) of the North Carolina Rules of Civil Procedure. See C.C. § 7-23(a). In the Motion to Dismiss, Defendant Smoker argues that Plaintiff failed to attach a copy of the minor child’s birth certificate to the Complaint as required, and that as a result the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction. Def. Smoker Mot. To Dismiss ¶¶ 2-4. Defendant Smoker quotes the requirement of N.C. Gen. Stat. § 49-14(a) that: “A copy of a certificate of birth of the child shall be attached to the complaint.” Def. Smoker Mot. To Dismiss ¶ 2. The Court treats Defendant Smoker’s argument as being brought under C.C. § 110-18(a), such that: “A certified copy of a certificate of birth of the child shall be attached to the complaint.” On September 7, 2023, Defendant Thompson filed his Answer and Counterclaim for Custody.

 

LEGAL QUESTION PRESENTED

If a certified copy oi the child s birth certificate is not attached to the complaint to establish paternity, as required under Section § 110-18(a) of the Cherokee Code, does the Cherokee Court lose jurisdiction?

 

ANALYSIS

1. Subject matter jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s claims is derived from C.C. § 1 -2(b); the Cherokee Code governs Plaintiff’s cause of action, subject matter jurisdiction, and interpretation of the applicable law.

Defendant Smoker argues that the language in C.C. § 110-18(a) that “[a] certified copy of a certificate of birth of the child shall be attached to the complaint[,]” is an issue of subject matter jurisdiction. See Def. Smoker Mot. To Dismiss ¶ 4. An issue of statutory interpretation is a question of law. Anders v. Cherokee Board of Elections, 17 Am. Tribal Law 200, 204 (E. Cherokee S.Ct. 2021) (citing Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians ex rel. Enrolled Members v. Lambert, 15 Am. Tribal Law 55, 63 (E. Cherokee S.Ct. 2018)). As explained by the Cherokee Supreme Court, the Court must first look to the plain meaning or the plain language of a statute to determine if the statute speaks directly to the issue presented.” Anders, 17 Am. Tribal Law at 204-205 (quoting Teesateskie v. Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians Minors Fund, 13 Am. Tribal Law 180, 186 (E. Cherokee S.Ct. 2015)).

The jurisdiction of the Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians, including the Judicial Branch, extends to all persons, activities, and property within the territory of the Eastern Band based upon inherent territorial or popular sovereignty.” C.C. § 7-2(a). The Cherokee Court, as the Trial Court, derives its jurisdiction from C.C. § 7-2(b), which confers “original jurisdiction over all cases and controversies, both criminal and civil, in law or in equity, arising under the Charter, laws, customs, and traditions of the Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians, including cases in which the Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians, or its officials and employees, shall be a party.” Generally, civil jurisdiction in the Cherokee Court is governed by C.C. § 1-2. The Court “shall have jurisdiction over all persons, businesses, corporations or other legal entities in civil suits which arise on the Cherokee Indian Reservation.” C.C. § 1-2(a). Moreover, jurisdiction over domestic relations is set forth in C.C. § 1-2(b).

The Cherokee Court shall exercise jurisdiction over the domestic relations of all individuals residing on Cherokee trust lands. Jurisdiction shall be exercised for cases including but not limited to child protection and child welfare, divorce, separation, child custody, support, alimony, adoption, guardianship, and paternity.

C.C. § 1-2(b) (emphases added). Plaintiff, Defendant Smoker, Defendant Thompson, and the minor child all reside on Cherokee Trust Lands.2 Pursuant to C.C. § l-2(b), the Court’s jurisdiction is not discretionary; as the parties reside on Cherokee Trust Lands, the Court shall exercise jurisdiction over the parties’ domestic relations. C.C. § 1-2(b).3

Section § 110-18(a) of the Code sets forth a civil cause of action to establish paternity.

The paternity of a child born out of wedlock may be established by civil action. A certified copy of a certificate of birth of the child shall be attached to the complaint. Such establishment of paternity shall not have the effect of legitimization.

C.C. § 110-18(a). This provision falls within Chapter 110 - Child Support Enforcement. See C.C. § 110-0.1 et seq. Section § 110-0.1(b) of the Code guides interpretation of the Chapter and requires liberal construction, and application “in a manner consistent with child support laws set forth in Chapter 50.”4 Consistent with the choice of law provision in Section § 50-13 of the Code, [e]xcept as set forth in this chapter or another provision of the Cherokee Code,” parties seeking remedies in family law, including child custody and child support, “shall have all rights provided by the laws of North Carolina. The court shall look to the laws of North Carolina for guidance in resolving any family matter not specifically governed by the Cherokee Code or established Cherokee customs and traditions.” C.C. § 50-13 (emphases added).5 Actions to establish paternity of a child born out of wedlock are governed by C.C. § 110-18(a). “Wedlock” may be generally interpreted to mean “[t]he quality, state, or condition of being married; matrimony. Wedlock, Black s Law Dictionary (11th ed. 2019). Defendant Smoker has admitted that she is not currently married, nor was she married at the time of conception of the minor child. Def. Smoker Answer ¶ 6. See also Compl. ¶ 6; Def. Thompson Answer 1, ¶ 6. Therefore, the Court’s jurisdiction is derived from C.C. § 1-2(b); the action to establish paternity of the minor child M.W.T. is governed by C.C. § 110-18(a); and in making any decisions regarding paternity or interpretation of the Code provisions, the Court is bound by the laws, customs, traditions, and precedents of the EBCI. C.C. § 7-2(d); C.C. § 50-13.

 

2. Plaintiff’s failure to attach a certified copy of the birth certificate pursuant to C.C. § 110-18(a) is a procedural defect, and not a jurisdictional defect.

Defendant Smoker argues that Plaintiff’s failure to attach a copy of the child’s birth certificate, as required by N.C. Gen. § Stat. 49-14(a), Def. Smoker Mot. To Dismiss ¶¶ 2-3, “deprives the Court of subject matter jurisdiction.” Id. ¶ 4. As explained above, the Court treats Defendant Smoker’s argument as being brought pursuant to the governing law, Section § 110-18(a) of the Cherokee Code, which requires that, “A certified copy of a certificate of birth of the child shall be attached to the complaint.” The Court rejects Defendant Smoker’s argument, and denies the Motion to Dismiss, on three grounds.

First, subject matter jurisdiction here is not governed by Section § 110-18(a) of the Code. Jurisdiction over domestic relations of individuals residing on Cherokee Trust Lands, including paternity cases, is set forth in C.C. § l-2(b).6 Section § 110-18(a) of the Code creates a procedural vehicle for which a civil cause of action may be brought to establish the paternity of a child bom out of wedlock, and requires that a certified copy of the birth certificate be attached to the complaint.7 Tribal Council did not include any jurisdictional language in C.C. § 110-18(a), or language to otherwise treat the birth certificate as a jurisdictional prerequisite,8 and therefore clearly envisioned that the jurisdictional provisions in C.C. § 1 -2(b) would govern. As further evidence of this intent, the only provision addressing jurisdiction under Article III (Support of Children Bom Out of Wedlock), Chapter 110 of the Code, is C.C. § 110-21 which governs jurisdiction over nonresident or nonpresent persons,9 i.e., individuals outside of Cherokee Trust Lands and otherwise not subject to jurisdiction under C.C. § 1-2(b). A conclusion here that the requirement to attach a certified copy of a birth certificate is a procedural rule would also be consistent with the rationale adopted by federal courts and other jurisdictions, which caution against court-imposed jurisdictional rules.10

Second, Defendant Smoker s argument is based on North Carolina case law interpreting a North Carolina statute, and jurisdiction here is clearly governed by the laws, customs, traditions, and precedents of the EBCI. As to the laws of the EBCI, Defendant Smoker has not argued that subject matter jurisdiction is not proper under C.C. § l-2(b), nor offered reasoning as to why the Court should otherwise ignore Tribal Council’s intention that the Court “shall exercise” jurisdiction over paternity cases involving individuals residing on Cherokee Trust Lands. Additionally, Defendant Smoker has not argued that the Court is otherwise prohibited from exercising jurisdiction.11

Third, the authority offered by Defendant Smoker is not persuasive and may be distinguished from the case at hand. In support of her argument, Defendant Smoker cites a North Carolina Court of Appeals case, Reynolds v. Motley, 385 S.E. 2d 548, 96 N.C. Ct. App. 299 (N.C. Ct. App. 1989). The action in Reynolds was originally brought by a Virginia state agency as an action for support under the Uniform Reciprocal Enforcement of Support Act, which predicated relief on a judicial establishment of paternity. Reynolds, 385 S.E. 2d at 549-551, N.C. Ct. App. at 300-304.12 The interests in Reynolds and the case at hand are inherently different, as the statute involved in Reynolds offered out-of-state governmental entities standing to seek enforcement of support when the entity has provided the obligee-children support via public assistance funds, 385 S.E.2d at 550-551, 96 N.C. App. at 302-303, whereas C.C. § 110-18 presents different parties such as putative fathers with an action to establish paternity.

The court of appeals provided no explanation or reasoning for their conclusion that the failure to attach the certified copy of the birth certificates for the minor children divested the court of jurisdiction to adjudicate paternity. The only rationale offered was a citation to another case in the N.C. Court of Appeals, Dept. of Social Services v. Williams, 277 S.E.2d 865, 52 N.C. App. 112 (N.C. Ct. App. 1981). See Reynolds, 385 S.E.2d at 551-552, 96 N.C. App. at 304. In Williams, the court held that the district court did not have jurisdiction to enforce child support duties under N.C.G.S. Chapter 110 when the written acknowledgement of paternity did not meet the statutory requirements.13 The statutory requirements went to the legitimacy and legality of the written acknowledgment, to support the acknowledgement being accepted in lieu of a judicial order.14 Similar to Reynolds therefore, the court’s subject matter jurisdiction to enforce a support obligation in Williams was predicated on finding that the defendant had a legal duty to support pursuant to an establishment of paternity. Therefore, while the birth certificate in Reynolds potentially would have supported a finding of paternity and affected the court’s jurisdiction to establish and enforce a legal duty of support against the father, the Plaintiff here is asserting that the minor child’s birth certificate is erroneous,15 and the birth certificate would neither grant nor deprive the Court of jurisdiction.

 

3. The Court may act on Plaintiff’s procedural defect.

In addressing Plaintiff’s failure to attach a certified copy of the birth certificate, the Court may allow for Plaintiff to remedy the defect; disregard the defect in the interest of justice; or dismiss the Complaint. First, Plaintiff has likely otherwise presented a sufficient complaint for relief and a procedural rule of this nature may essentially create a higher standard of pleading for parties filing a complaint under C.C. § 110-18(a) than would otherwise apply under the Rules of Civil Procedure. See N.C. R. Civ. Pro. 8(a). See also N.C. R. Civ. Pro. 8(f). in the Complaint, Plaintiff alleged that he and Defendant Smoker had sexual relations around the time that the minor child was conceived, that an at-home DNA test indicated that Plaintiff is the biological father of the minor child,16 and that Plaintiff and Defendant Smoker have held out that Plaintiff is the biological father since the date of the test. Compl. ¶¶ 13-17.17 Plaintiff’s Complaint likely sufficiently met the pleading requirements under N.C. R. Civ. Pro. 8. Even if it does not, pursuant to the Rules of Civil Procedure, the Court may grant Plaintiff leave to amend the Complaint by submitting the certified copy of the birth certificate, “and leave shall be freely given when justice so requires.” N.C. R. Civ. Pro. 15(a).

Second, a proceeding under C.C. § 110-18(a) may be instituted by a party who otherwise may not be able to obtain access to a certified copy of the child’s birth certificate. Proceedings to establish paternity may be brought by “[t]he mother, the father, the child or the personal representative of the child[,]” C.C. § 110-20(1), and “[w]hen the child, or the mother in case of medical expenses, is likely to become a public charge, the Director of Social Services or his designee.” C.C. § 110-20(2). Assuming arguendo that the minor child was born in the state of North Carolina, there is a question as to when Plaintiff would have been able to obtain a certified copy of the birth certificate from the state.18 The Court may enter an Order concluding that Petitioner is seeking a legal determination of personal or property rights and that Petitioner requires, and is entitled, to a certified copy of the minor’s birth certificate for this legal determination.19 Alternatively, the Court may disregard the defect in the interests of justice as C.C. § 110-18(a) appears to be the sole cause of action in which a putative father may seek to establish paternity,20 and establishment of paternity under C.C. § 110-18(a) may be a prerequisite to a putative father gaining any form of recognition or enforcement of parental rights.21

 

CONCLUSION

The Cherokee Court does not lose subject matter jurisdiction over a complaint to establish paternity if a certified copy of the child’s birth certificate is not attached to the complaint, as required under C.C. § 110-18(a). Jurisdiction over domestic relations of individuals residing on Cherokee Trust Lands, including jurisdiction over paternity, is governed by C.C. § 1-2(b). Section § 110-18(a) of the Code sets forth a civil cause of action, and the failure to attach a certified copy of the birth certificate creates a procedural defect. The Court further concludes that this is an action in which Plaintiff is “seeking information for a legal determination of personal or property rights.” N.C. Gen. Stat. § 130A-93(c)(2). See also id. § 130A-93(c)(3). Therefore, Plaintiff or Plaintiff’s attorney is entitled to a certified copy of the birth certificate of the minor child (M.W.T., date of birth: March 25, 2021), who is the subject of this action and is named in the Complaint.

 

ORDER

Based on the foregoing analysis and arguments presented, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction is DENIED.

2. The North Carolina State Registrar and other officials authorized to issue certified copies of vital records, including birth certificates, shall provide a certified copy of the minor child’s birth certificate to the Plaintiff or his attorney, Stephanie Lepre.22 A copy of this Order and Plaintiff’s Complaint shall be certified by the Cherokee Court Clerk of Court and submitted by Plaintiff or Plaintiff s counsel to the State Registrar or other official authorized to issue a certified copy of the minor child’s birth certificate.

3. The certified copy of the birth certificate shall be filed in this matter and, upon filing, shall be deemed to have amended Plaintiff’s complaint.

All Citations
Not Reported in Am. Tribal L. Rptr., 2023 WL 7108278

Footnotes
1	The Court treats Plaintiff s other claims for relief as if brought under the Code, specifically the Motion to Compel Genetic Testing under C.C. § 110-17(b), and the Motion to Determine Custody under C.C. 6 110-19 and C.C. § 50-12.
2	Compl. ¶ 1 (alleging that Plaintiff is a resident of the Territories of the EBCI), ¶ 2 (alleging that Defendant Smoker is a resident of the Territories of the EBCI), ¶ 3 (alleging that Defendant Thompson is a resident of the Territories of the EBCI), ¶ 10 (alleging that minor child is a resident of the Territories and Trust Lands of the EBCI); Det. Smoker Answer, ¶¶ 1, 2, 3, 10; Def. Thompson Answer 1, ¶ 1 (denied allegation as to Plaintiff’s residency based on insufficient information), ¶ 2, ¶ 3, ¶ 0.
3	See also C.C. § 110-21 (“The act of sexual intercourse within the boundaries of Cherokee Trust Land constitutes sufficient minimum contact for the purposes of subjecting the person or persons participating therein to the jurisdiction of the Cherokee Court for actions brought under this chapter for paternity and support of any child who may have been conceived as a result of such act.”).
4	C.C. § 110-0.1(b) (“This chapter shall be liberally constructed to provide child support for minor children under the jurisdiction of the Tribe and applied in a manner consistent with child support laws set forth in Chapter 50. All singular terms shall be construed to include the plural and all pronouns shall be construed to include both genders.”).
5	See also C.C. § 7-2(d) (“In deciding cases and controversies over which it has jurisdiction, the Judicial Branch shall be bound by the laws, customs, traditions, and precedents of the Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians. If there is no applicable Cherokee law, the Judicial Branch shall look next to Federal law, then to North Carolina law, and finally to the law of other jurisdictions for guidance.”) (emphases added).
6	See generally Reed Elsevier, Inc., et al v. Muchnick, 559 U.S. 154, 160-161, 130 S.Ct. 1237, 1243 (2010) (’“Jurisdiction’ refers to ‘a court’s adjudicatory authority.’ Accordingly, the term ‘jurisdictional’ properly applies only to ‘prescriptions delineating the classes of cases (subject-matter jurisdiction) and the persons (personal jurisdiction)’ implicating that authority.”) (quoting Kontrick v. Ryan, 540 U.S. 443, 455 (2004)) (additional citations omitted).
7	See Muchnick, 559 U.S. at 166, 130 S.Ct. at 1246 (“A statutory condition that requires a party to take some action before filing a lawsuit is not automatically ‘a jurisdictional prerequisite to suit.’ Rather, the jurisdictional analysis must focus on the ‘legal character’ of the requirement, which we have discerned by looking to the condition’s text, context, and relevant historical treatment[.]”) (emphasis in original) (citations omitted).
8	See Muchnick, 559 U.S. at 161 -162, 130 S.Ct. at 1244 (restating the general approach in federal cases to distinguish “jurisdictional” conditions from claim-processing requirements or claim elements: “If the Legislature clearly states that a threshold limitation on a statute’s scope shall count as jurisdictional, then courts and litigants will be duly instructed and will not be left to wrestle with the issue. But when Congress does not rank a statutory limitation on coverage as jurisdictional, courts should treat the restriction as nonjurisdictional in character.”) (emphasis added) (quoting Arbaugh v. Y&H Corp., 546 U.S. 500,515-516 (2006)).
9	See supra note 3.
10	See e.g., Henderson ex rel. Henderson v. Shinseki, 562 U.S. 428, 435, 131 S.Ct. 1197, 1202-1203 (2011) (“Because the consequences that attach to the jurisdictional label may be so drastic, we have tried in recent cases to bring some discipline to the use of this term. We have urged that a rule should not be referred to as jurisdictional unless it governs a court’s adjudicatory capacity, that is, subject-matter or personal jurisdiction. Other rules, even if important and mandatory, we have said, should not be given the jurisdictional brand. Among the types of rules that should not be described as jurisdictional are what we have called ‘claim-processing rules.’ These are rules that seek to promote the orderly progress of litigation by requiring that the parties take certain procedural steps at certain specified times.”) (citations omitted); CSC Group Holdings, LLC v. Automation & Electronics, Inc., 368 P.3d 302, 307 (Wyo. 2016) (“Subject matter jurisdiction is the power provided to a court by constitution or statute to hear and determine the general class of cases to which a particular proceeding belongs. It cannot be created or destroyed by procedural irregularities, such as, for example, a defect in the process by which intervention effectively adds a new party to a case. The rules of civil procedure cannot extend or limit subject matter jurisdiction even though such rules may establish the proper method of invoking the jurisdiction of the court in particular cases. A court’s subject matter jurisdiction lies dormant until it is called upon to exercise it by some sort of initiating procedural mechanism, such as a pleading, complaint, or information. At that point the court ‘acquires jurisdiction’ in the limited sense of procedurally having the authority to proceed and exercise its subject matter jurisdiction in a particular case. Consequently, a failure to adhere to the requirements governing the proper nature and filing of such case-initiating documents, even to the extent they may be characterized as substantive requirements, will not necessarily deprive a court of subject matter jurisdiction.”) (citations omitted).
11	See C.C. § 7-2(c) (“The Judicial Branch shall not have jurisdiction over matters in which the exercise of jurisdiction has been specifically prohibited by a binding decision of the United States Supreme Court, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit or by an Act of Congress.”); C.C. § 7-3(b) (“The Judicial Branch shall not adjudicate the same matter twice.”).
12	As the court of appeals explained, the Uniform Reciprocal Enforcement of Support Act (URESA) did not provide grounds for determining the existence of a duty to support, and in effect did not provide grounds for determining paternity. Rather, the substantive law to establish a duty to support fell under URESA’s choice of law provision. Reynolds, 385 S.E.3d at 551, 96 N.C. Ct. App. at 303-04 In Reynolds the court of appeals found that North Carolina substantive law governed the issue and explained that “the duty of a putative father to support his illegitimate child is predicated on the judicial establishment of his paternity with respect to such child ‘pursuant to G.S. 49-14.” ’ Id. (quoting N.C. Gen. Stat. § 49-15 (1984)). Pursuant to the statute, “[a] certified copy of a certificate of birth of the child shall be attached to the complaint.” Reynolds, 385 S.E.3d at 551, 96 N.C. Ct. App. at 304 (quoting N.C. Gen Stat 8 49-14(a)).
13	Williams, 277 S.E. 2d at 869, 52 N.C. App. at 118 (“G.S. s 110-133 provides a mechanism for the judicial enforcement and modification of a written agreement ‘executed by the responsible parent’ to support his or her dependent child. In the instant case, ‘responsible parent’ is the critical statutory phrase We have already stated that a responsible parent is one ‘who has the legal duty to support’ a dependent child, G.S. s 110-129(3), and that defendant’s legal duty to support ... had to be established under the provisions of G.S. s 110-132(a). Here, a legal duty to support the child on defendant’s part could not exist until his acknowledgement of paternity was accompanied by the mother’s affirmation of the same and approved by the court. Thus, defendant was not a ‘responsible parent,’ and the court had no authority to enter an order approving the support agreement under G.S. s 110-133.”).
14	Williams, 52 N.C. App. at 115, 277 S.E.2d at 868 (“It is elemental then that full compliance with the statutory requirements was necessary to confer proper jurisdiction upon the district court for the entry of an order approving the voluntary support agreement so as to make it ‘enforceable and subject to modification in the same manner as is provided by law for (support) orders of the court (quoting N.C. Gen. Stat. § 110-132(a)).
15	See Compl. ¶¶ 8-9.
16	The minor child may have potentially submitted to two DNA tests. Plaintiff alleged that the minor child is an enrolled member of the EBCI, that the minor child has resided on Cherokee Trust Lands since her birth, and that the Court has jurisdiction. Compl. ¶ 10. In her Answer, Defendant Smoker admitted to residency, but denied jurisdiction on the basis that it is a conclusion of law. Def. Smoker Answer ¶10. Defendant Smoker did not deny that the minor child is an enrolled member, and therefore admitted the averment. N.C. R. Civ. Pro. R. 8(d). See also N.C. R. Civ. Pro. R. 8(b). Defendant Thompson admitted in his answer that the minor is an enrolled member, has resided on Cherokee Trust Lands since birth, and that the Court has jurisdiction. Def. Thompson Answer 1, ¶ 10. Applications for enrollment must include a DNA test establishing the probability of parentage through the parent whom lineage is claimed C.C. 8 49-5(c)(12).
17	See Def. Smoker Answer ¶ 13 (admitting sexual relations), ¶ 15 (admitting that she was told of test results by Plaintiff), K 16 (admitting unknown reliability and validity of test), ¶ 17 (denying that Def. Smoker held Plaintiff out as the child’s father to the general public, but admitting that Def. Smoker allowed Plaintiff to see child briefly on occasion); Def. Thompson Answer 2, ¶ 13 (denying allegation of sexual relations based on insufficient information), ¶ 15-16 (denying allegations of at-home DNA test and test’s reliability and validity based on insufficient information), ¶ 17 (denying that Plaintiff and Defendant Smoker have held Plaintiff out to be the father).
18	Copies of North Carolina birth certificates are available “to any person upon request.” N.C. Gen. Stat. 130A-99(a) (West 2023). Certified copies however are only available to those identified by statute. N.C. Gen. Stat. § 130A-99(a) (citing N.C.G.S. § 130A-93(c)). For purposes of the case at hand, the relevant categories are those defined in N.C. Gen. Stat. § 130A-93(c)(1)-(3): “(1) A person requesting a copy of the person s own vital records or that of the person’s spouse, sibling, direct ancestor or descendant, or stepparent or stepchild; (2) A person seeking information for a legal determination of personal or property rights; or (3) An authorized agent, attorney or legal representative of a person described above ”
19	N.C. Gen. Stat. § 130A-93(c)(2).
20	The. Code sets forth different methods for acknowledging paternity, as well as different cause of actions for Tribal entities to establish paternity, but it does not appear that another cause of action exists for putative fathers. See C.C. § 110-5(a) (establishing paternity via a written acknowledgement in lieu of a legal proceeding); C.C. § 110-7(a) (providing that a Tribal Child Support Services office may subpoena a minor child, the mother, and the putative father to appear for blood or genetic testing to establish paternity in a IV-D court action); C.C. § 110-3 (providing that a Tribal agency may institute an action for support against the responsible parent or pursue an action instituted “by the mother, father, custodian or guardian for the maintenance of the child, including an ancillary action to establish paternity, if she or he fails to prosecute to final judgment),]” and may subpoena the parent “for testimony at the trial of the action to establish paternity of or to obtain support for the child.”; C.C. § 110-1.1 (setting forth additional powers for the Tribal Child Support Services in regard to establishing paternity).
21	See C.C. § 110-19 (“ Upon and after the establishment of paternity of a child born out-of-wedlock pursuant to this chapter, the rights, duties, and obligations of the mother and father so established, with regard to support and custody of the child, shall be the same, and may be determined and enforced in the same manner, as if the child were the legitimate child of such father and mother. When paternity has been established, the father becomes responsible for medical expenses incident to the pregnancy and birth of the child.”) (emphasis added).
22	N.C. Gen. Stat. § IE-1 (“The courts of this State shall give full faith and credit to a judgment, decree, or order signed by a judicial officer of the Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians and filed in the Cherokee Tribal Courts to the same extent as is given a judgment, decree, or order of another state, subject to the provisions of subsections (b) and (c) of this section; provided that the judgments, decrees, and orders of the courts of this State are given full faith and credit by the Tribal Courts of the Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians.”).