By: Ardel Austin R. Ciolo
I. INTRODUCTION
The Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands (“CNMI”)[1] recognizes local custom by memorializing it into its statutory code.[2] In the CNMI, an adoption recognized by local statute includes the Chamorro custom of poksai.[3] Poksai is a customary adoption where a pineksai[4] is treated “as though the child were a natural and legitimate child” of the adopter.[5] Determination of a poksai adoption is important because a pineksai is “entitled to inherit from the decedent’s estate as the decedent’s issue.”[6]
II. BACKGROUND
Approximately 3,500 years ago, Austronesian-speaking people from Southeast Asia arrived on the Northern Mariana Islands.[7] Chamorro life was upended in 1668 due to the violent subjugation of Chamorro culture under Spanish Colonization.[8] Despite centuries of colonization, fragments of Chamorro custom continued, including informal adoption, i.e., poksai.[9] According to Spoehr, the frequency of customary adoptions in the Northern Mariana Islands were less than in surrounding Micronesian societies, but “legal formalities attending adoption” were unnecessary.[10] The only requirement to establish poksai was a “common agreement.”[11] Although Spoehr provided a guideline, the CNMI Supreme Court has not crystallized an analysis, leaving the lower court to create its own inquiry.[12] Therefore, we examine case law to determine the circumstances when a child is adopted through poksai.
In the earliest decision relevant to poksai, In re Estate of Camacho, the court determined that the decedent raised three children “by ‘poksai’ . . . as though they were his natural children.”[13] The Supreme Court reasoned that the pineksai was taken in “as a little girl” but did not express any other factor relevant to the adoption.[14] Three years later, in In re Estate of Deleon Castro, the court concluded that the decedent’s grandson was raised by poksai,[15] but no analysis relevant to the poksai adoption was made.
After Deleon Castro, in In re Estate of Ayuyu, the court emphasized the child’s age when she was adopted by poksai.[16] Six months after the child was born, she was transferred from her natural parent’s “care and custody” to her grandparents.[17] Ayuyu is also informative because the pineksai did not live with the decedent until her death. The pineksai lived with the decedent for twelve years and left the decedent before she was eighteen.[18]
The court, in In re Estate of Macaranas, cited language from Cabrera that is “very helpful” in understanding a poksai adoption,[19] finding it significant that the decedent in Cabrera adopted the child when she was “a little girl.”[20] Following Macaranas, where the court accepted the poksai adoption as fact,[21] the court in In re Estate of Rios did not reverse the trial court’s finding that the claimant was adopted by poksai but did stress the importance of (1) the decedent asking the pineksai to be her child while “she was still a young girl”; and (2) the pineksai lived with the decedent at the time of her death.[22]
Between Cabrera and Macaranas, the trial court heard “substantial evidence regarding” poksai.[23] In In re Estate of Iglecias, a court finally acknowledged the reality of poksai adoption.[24] In Iglecias, the court found that the decedent adopted the pineksai. The pineksai was taken into her grandparents’ home after she was born.[25] Then, the pineksai lived with her grandparents, who cared for and supported her, including her education, even after she left their home at around thirteen years old.[26]
In two recent trial court decisions in In re Estate of Acebo[27] and in In re Estate of Camacho,[28] the trial court dealt with the issue of poksai. In both cases, the court initially examined the pineksai’s age when she was adopted. In Acebo, the pineksai was adopted as an infant, while in Camacho, a child was adopted when she was four years old.[29] Then, the court examined whether the decedent performed the duties of a natural parent for the pineksai. This includes providing a home, food, and clothing for their pineksai while being responsible for their education.[30] Finally, the court examined the decedent’s and the natural parents’ relationship with the pineksai and how the decedent held the pineksai out to the public. In Acebo and Camacho, the natural parents rarely interacted with their children, while the decedent held their pineksai as their natural children to the family and the public.[31] The court in both cases found poksai.
III. ANALYSIS
Applying the case law discussed above, a two-part test can be used to determine whether a poksai adoption occurred.
First, determine if there was a “common agreement among the families involved . . . .”[32] This requirement is consistent with Chamorro culture. For example, the decedents would ask the pineksai’s natural parent if they could take the child as their own, to which the natural parents obliged.[33]
Second, the test asks if the decedent treated the child as a “natural and legitimate child[] . . . .”[34] To make this determination, five factors used in prior decisions that conform with the reality of Chamorro custom are weighed
First, courts look at whether the child was young when they were adopted by the decedent.[35] While none of the decisions established a cut-off, the decedent need not adopt the child immediately after birth. For example, the court is willing to weigh this factor in favor of the proposed pineksai even if the child was adopted when she was four years old.[36] Second, the court will examine whether the child lived with the decedent for a significant period, though the child does not need to live with the decedent permanently. Indeed, the court still found that a poksai adoption occurred even if the pineksai left the decedents before their death.[37] The common trend is that the pineksai lived with the decedent for most of their childhood.[38] Third, courts look to see whether decedent performed the natural parent’s duties for the child. At a minimum, this includes providing shelter, food, clothing, and education for the pineksai.[39] Fourth, the child must not have a parent-child relationship with their natural parent. Finally, the decedent must hold the child as their own to the public. For example, in Acebo and Camacho, the decedent’s called the pineksai their daughters to extended family and the public.[40]
IV. CONCLUSION
While poksai is recognized by statute and the Supreme Court, neither authority offers a thorough analysis nor test determining whether a child was adopted through poksai. Although the scant authority permits a crude test that adheres to Chamorro custom, the test does not encapsulate the breadth of poksai. Nevertheless, the test establishes that the court must consider the totality of the circumstances and the realities of Chamorro culture when considering whether a child was adopted through poksai.
Footnotes:
[1] The CNMI is a member of the “American political family,” Diamond Hotel Co., Ltd. v. Matsunaga, 4 N. Mar. I. 213, 215 (1995), through a covenant, see Covenant to Establish a Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands in Political Union with the United States of America, 48 U.S.C. § 1801, 94 Pub. L. No. 241, 90 Stat. 263.
[2] See Northern Mariana Islands Probate Law, 1984 N. Mar. I Pub. L 3-106. Indeed, the legislature’s purposes for passing the Northern Mariana Islands Probate Law was, inter alia, “to realize the compelling interest of Northern Mariana Islands in preserving the historic traditions and culture of its citizens of Northern Marianas descent.” Id. § 4(a).
[3] See In re Estate of Rios, 2008 MP 5 ¶ 23 (affirming the Chamorro customary adoption of poksai); see also 8 N. Mar. I. Code § 1104 (2024).
[4] A pineksai is a person raised or being raised under poksai. See In re Estate of Cabrera, 2 N. Mar. I. 195, 201 n.2 (N. Mar. I. July 31, 1991).
[5] In re Estate of Macaranas, 2003 MP 11 ¶ 1 n.1 (citing Cabrera, 2 N. Mar. I. at 198 n.1 (1991)).
[6] Id. ¶ 8.
[7] The Northern Mariana Islands consist of Farallon de Pajaros, Maug, Asuncion, Agrihan, Pagan, Alamagan, Guguan, Sariguan, Anatahan, Farallon de Medinilla, Saipan, Tinian, Aguigan, and Rota. See Alexander Spoehr, Saipan: The Ethnology of a War-Devastated Island 19, fig. 1 (1954). “Spoehr’s work . . . is the only text consistently relied on . . . to gain insight into traditional Chamorro culture and law.” Elizabeth B. Ristroph, The Survival of Customary Law in the Northern Mariana Islands, 8 Chi.-Kent J. Int’l Comp. Law 33-34 (2008).
[8] See Don A. Farrell, History of the Mariana Islands to Partition 142-43, 154, 174-77 (2011); Scott Russell, Tiempon I Manmofo’na: Ancient Chamorro Culture and History of the Northern Mariana Islands 78 (1998).
[9] See Spoehr, supra note 7, at 285. Another Chamorro custom that survived colonization includes partida, a “mechanism under which succession to family land under Chamorro customary law is effectuated.” In re Estate of Seman, 4 N. Mar. I. 129, 132 (1994) (citation omitted); see also Spoehr, supra note 7, at 135-37.
[10] Id. at 285-86.
[11] Id. at 286.
[12] See, e.g., In re Estate of Acebo, Decision and Order at 8-11, Civ. Action No. 19-0366 (N.M.I. Super. Ct. Sept. 8, 2021).
[13] Cabrera, 2 N. Mar. I. at 199.
[14] Id.
[15] See 4 N. Mar. I. 102, 106 (1994).
[16] See 1996 MP 19 ¶ 5. It must be emphasized that the Supreme Court did not make a poksai determination in Ayuyu, although it accepted that the child was adopted by poksai as fact. Id.
[17] Id.
[18] See id. ¶ 6.
[19] Macaranas, 2003 MP 11 ¶ 13.
[20] Id.
[21] Id. ¶ 2.
[22] 2008 MP 5 ¶ 2.
[23] In re Estate of Iglecias, Decision and Order at 7, Civ. Action No. 05-0141 (N.M.I. Super. Ct. Dec. 15, 2005).
[24] See id.
[25] See id. at 2-3.
[26] See id. at 2-4.
[27] See Decision and Order, Civ. Action No. 19-0366 (N.M.I. Super. Ct. Sept. 8, 2021).
[28] See Decision and Order, Civ. Action No. 19-0210 (N.M.I. Super. Ct. Apr. 19, 2024). Camacho may finally provide a binding analysis when a poksai adoption occurs because the case is before the Supreme Court. See In re Estate of Camacho, 2024-SCC-0008-CIV (N.M.I. Sup. Ct.).
[29] See Acebo, Decision and Order at 3, Civ. Action No. 19-0366 (N.M.I. Super. Ct. Sept. 8, 2021); Camacho, Decision and Order at 31, Civ. Action No. 19-0210 (N.M.I. Super. Ct. Apr. 19, 2024).
[30] See Acebo, Decision and Order at 3, Civ. Action No. 19-0366 (N.M.I. Super. Ct. Sept. 8, 2021); Camacho, Decision and Order at 32, Civ. Action No. 19-0210 (N.M.I. Super. Ct. Apr. 19, 2024).
[31] See Acebo, Decision and Order at 3-4, Civ. Action No. 19-0366 (N.M.I. Super. Ct. Sept. 8, 2021); Camacho, Decision and Order at 32-33, Civ. Action No. 19-0210 (N.M.I. Super. Ct. Apr. 19, 2024).
[32] Spoehr, supra note 6, at 285.
[33] See Rios, 2008 MP 5 ¶ 2; see also Camacho, Decision and Order at 7, Civ. Action No. 19-0210 (N.M.I. Super. Ct. Apr. 19, 2024). Ayuyu is unique because the decedent asked the pineksai if she could be adopted. It is unknown whether the child must consent to the adoption because a poksai adoption typically occurs immediately or soon after the child’s birth.
[34] Macaranas, 2003 MP 11 ¶ 17.
[35] “[A] transfer of care at a young age supports the assertion that a person was adopted through poksai.” Camacho, Decision and Order at 27, Civ. Action No. 19-0210 (N.M.I. Super. Ct. Apr. 19, 2024).
[36] See Camacho, Decision and Order at 31, Civ. Action No. 19-0210 (N.M.I. Super. Ct. Apr. 19, 2024).
[37] See, e.g., Ayuyu, 1996 MP 19 ¶ 6; Iglecias, Decision and Order at 2-4, Civ. Action No. 05-0141 (N.M.I. Super. Ct. Dec. 15, 2005).
[38] See Ayuyu, 1996 MP 19 ¶ 6; Rios, 2008 MP 5 ¶ 2; Acebo, Decision and Order at 3, Civ. Action No. 19-0366 (N.M.I. Super. Ct. Sept. 8, 2021); Camacho, Decision and Order at 2, 57, 9, 12, Civ. Action No. 19-0210 (N.M.I. Super. Ct. Apr. 19, 2024).
[39] See Acebo, Decision and Order at 3, Civ. Action No. 19-0366 (N.M.I. Super. Ct. Sept. 8, 2021). This is an outgrowth of Iglecias, where the pineksai’s natural parent played a minimal role during their child’s formative years. See Decision and Order at 2-4, Civ. Action No. 05-0141 (N.M.I. Super. Ct. Dec. 15, 2005).
[40] See Acebo, Decision and Order at 3, 9-10, Civ. Action No. 19-0366 (N.M.I. Super. Ct. Sept. 8, 2021); Camacho, Decision and Order at 34, Civ. Action No. 19-0210 (N.M.I. Super. Ct. Apr. 19, 2024).
About the Author:
Ardel Ciolo is a first-year J.D. candidate at Penn State Dickinson Law. Ardel was born and raised in Saipan, an island in the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands. He stayed home for his undergraduate studies and graduated summa cum laude from the Northern Marianas College in Saipan, CNMI, earning a B.S. in Business Management. While he pursued his undergraduate degree, Ardel worked as a paralegal for a sole practitioner and volunteered for a 501(c)(3) legal service non-profit organization.
Suggested Citation: Ardel Ciolo, Poksai: A Legally Recognized Chamorro Custom Without a Crystallized Analysis, Penn St. L. Rev.: F. Blog (Feb. 18, 2025), https://www.pennstatelawreview.org/the-forum/poksai-a-legally-recognized-chamorro-custom-without-a-crystallized-analysis/