AI Generated Opinion Summaries

This summary was computer-generated without any editorial revision. It is not official, has not been checked for accuracy, and is NOT citable.

Facts

• The case involves a co-parenting arrangement between the petitioner-appellant (Mother), intervenor-appellant (Demmon, the biological father), and the respondent-appellee (Bennett) concerning one child. The arrangement was formalized in a memorandum of agreement and entered as a stipulated court order in 2007 as part of Mother’s divorce from Bennett. Despite Bennett not being the biological father, he was named as such on the child's birth certificate and was involved in the child's life. Disputes arose regarding the enforcement and modification of this agreement, leading to the current appeal.

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Mother and Demmon: Argued that the district court erred in awarding joint legal custody to Bennett in addition to the child's biological mother and father. They also contended that the court's orders holding them in contempt and requiring them to pay Bennett’s attorney fees related to the contempt proceedings were erroneous.
• Bennett: Sought the court's intervention to prevent Mother from interfering with his relationship with the child and moved for the court to order the parties to participate in a child custody evaluation and to modify the agreement to reflect the best interests of the child.

Legal Issues

• Whether the district court erred in awarding joint legal custody to a third party in addition to the child's biological mother and father.
• Whether the district court erred in its orders holding Mother and Demmon in contempt of court and requiring them to pay Bennett’s attorney fees related to the contempt proceedings.

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court’s decisions, concluding that appellants did not demonstrate that the district court erred in entering the orders at issue.

Reasons

• The Court of Appeals, led by Judge Jonathan B. Sutin, with Chief Judge Roderick T. Kennedy and Judge M. Monica Zamora concurring, provided the following reasons for its decision:
  The court found that the appellants failed to preserve for review any issue relating to whether Bennett was the child’s “parent” under the New Mexico Uniform Parentage Act or whether he was a de facto parent, an equitable parent, or a parent under the Agreement. Nor did they preserve their argument regarding the applicability of the parental preference doctrine (paras 23-27).
  The court determined that the parenting order, which partially rejected and partially modified the advisory recommendations, constituted a modified version of the parenting plan and visitation schedule already in effect pursuant to the Agreement. It was within the district court's wide discretion to make changes that were in the child's best interest (paras 28-37).
  The court rejected the notion that the parenting order established joint custody between Bennett and Mother and Demmon, observing that shared legal custody was established by the Agreement, and the court should only have adopted the advisory recommendation to grant sole legal custody to Mother and Demmon if they demonstrated that such a change was required by a change in circumstances or was otherwise within the child's best interest (paras 29-32).
  The court concluded that the district court did not abuse its discretion in partially rejecting and partially modifying the advisory recommendations in keeping with its view of what was in the child's best interest. The evidence at the hearing supported the district court's conclusion that the child and Bennett were bonded and had a healthy and appropriate relationship (paras 33-37).
  Regarding the contempt and attorney fees issue, the court found that evidence at the contempt hearing supported the district court’s finding of a willful violation of the Agreement by Mother and Demmon. The court also found no basis to conclude that the district court abused its discretion in awarding the fees (paras 40-44).