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 dispute over the kinship guardianship of Skyler P. (Child), following the death of the Child's mother due to a terminal illness. The Child's maternal great-uncle (Uncle) filed for kinship guardianship ten days after the mother's death, seeking to continue caring for the Child and the Child's half-sister, with whom the Child had been living for at least two years prior to the mother's death. The Child's biological father (Father), who had been living in Washington, opposed the guardianship, expressing his desire to reunite with his son and take him to Washington (paras 2-3).

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Uncle: Argued that extraordinary circumstances justified the granting of kinship guardianship, citing the Child's well-being in his care, the close relationship with the Child and his half-sister, Father's lack of involvement in the Child's education, and allegations of Father's history of alcohol abuse and domestic violence (para 14).
• Father: Opposed the guardianship, expressing his desire to reunite with his son and arguing that he was willing and able to provide adequate care, maintenance, and supervision for the Child. Father also contended that the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA) applied to the case (paras 3, 4, 19).

Legal Issues

• Whether the Uncle proved extraordinary circumstances to overcome the parental presumption in favor of granting kinship guardianship under NMSA 1978, Section 40-10B-8(B)(3) (para 6).
• Whether the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA) applies to this matter (para 19).

Disposition

• The district court's denial of Uncle's petition for kinship guardianship was affirmed (para 23).

Reasons

• The Court, consisting of Judges M. Monica Zamora, Julie J. Vargas, and Jacqueline R. Medina, held that the Uncle did not meet the burden of proving extraordinary circumstances by clear and convincing evidence as required under the Kinship Guardianship Act (KGA). The Court found that the Father was willing and able to provide adequate care for the Child, and there was no substantial likelihood of serious psychological harm or other serious detriment to the Child if he were to move with his Father. The Court also noted that the Uncle did not establish himself as a "psychological parent" to the extent necessary to overcome the parental preference presumption. Regarding the ICWA, the Court determined that since the Uncle did not meet the burden required by the KGA, it was unnecessary to address whether the ICWA applies and whether the identical burden of proof under the ICWA’s statutory scheme was met (paras 6-22).