The court upheld the denial on the ground that "[t]he bulk of the evidence and the majority of the witnesses will come from Iowa." Id. at 317 ; accordIn re Robert T. , 246 Cal.Rptr. at 174, 176 (affirming the denial of a motion to transfer from a state court in California to a tribal court in New Mexico); People ex rel. T.E.R. , 305 P.3d 414, 418-19 (Colo. App. 2013) (Colorado to Michigan); In re Adoption of S.S. , 167 Ill.2d 250, 212 Ill.Dec. 590, 657 N.E.2d 935, 943 (1995) (Illinois to Montana); In re Interest of A.P. , 25 Kan.App.2d 268, 961 P.2d 706, 712-13 (1998) (Kansas to South Dakota); In re Interest of Bird Head , 213 Neb. 741, 331 N.W.2d 785, 790 (1983) (Nebraska to South Dakota); In re Wayne R.N. , 757 P.2d at 1336-37 (noting that "the tribal court's subpoena power was limited, and the tribal court [in Oklahoma] would not be able to subpoena witnesses in New Mexico"); In re C.J. , 108 N.E.3d 677, 695 (Ohio Ct. App. 2018) ("Good cause to deny transfer has been found where, as here, almost all the parties and witnesses reside in the county of the state court and have no contact with the tribal court."); Chester Cty. Dep't of Soc. Servs. v. Coleman , 303 S.C. 226, 399 S.E.2d 773, 775-77 (1990) (South Carolina to South Dakota); People ex rel. J.J. , 454 N.W.2d 317, 330 (S.D. 1990) (South Dakota to North Dakota); see alsoIn re Guardianship of J.C.D. , 686 N.W.2d 647, 650 (S.D. 2004) (gathering cases). [¶ 26] Here, the court's denial of the motion to transfer is fully supported by its findings and conclusions regarding the evidentiary burdens that would be imposed by the fact that all relevant witnesses and evidence are currently located in Maine.

Allowing the Community to establish exclusive jurisdiction through a ward order entered during the state proceedings would ignore the provision’s plain language that a tribe can only "retain" exclusive jurisdiction when the child is a ward. Id.; see also Gila River Indian Cmty., 242 Ariz. at 280, ¶ 11, 395 P.3d at 289 (citations omitted); In re C.J., 108 N.E.3d 677, 696-97, ¶ 101 (Ohio App. 2018). ¶61

If there is no representative, then the proceedings shall be had as the court of appeals may direct. See App.R. 29(A); Hamilton v. Barth, 1st Dist. Hamilton No. C-200027, 2021-Ohio-601, ¶ 2, fn. 1; In re C.J., 2018-Ohio-931, 108 N.E.3d 677, ¶ 52 (10th Dist.). Despite the suggestion of death, we direct that this appeal proceed and be determined as if Perko was not deceased.

(involving a transfer from Colorado to Michigan); Tubridy v. Iron Bear , 167 Ill.2d 250, 212 Ill.Dec. 590, 657 N.E.2d 935, 943 (1995) (Illinois to Montana); In re Interest of A.P. , 25 Kan.App.2d 268, 961 P.2d 706, 712-13 (1998) (Kansas to South Dakota); In re Interest of Bird Head , 213 Neb. 741, 331 N.W.2d 785, 790 (1983) (Nebraska to South Dakota); In re C.J. , 108 N.E.3d 677, 695 (Ohio Ct. App. 2018) ("Good cause to deny transfer has been found where, as here, almost all the parties and witnesses reside in the county of the state court and have no contact with the tribal court."); Chester County.Dep't of Soc. Servs. v. Coleman , 303 S.C. 226, 399 S.E.2d 773, 775-77 (1990) (South Carolina to South Dakota). The Navajo Nation's petition for writ of mandamus is denied.