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

• In 1985, the Appellant filed for divorce, which was finalized in 1987, establishing him as the father of four minor children, including Lisa Rodriguez, and ordering him to pay child support. In 2002, the New Mexico Human Services Department moved to modify child support, citing Lisa's severe disability and need for lifelong support. The Appellant contested paternity in his response. The court reaffirmed his paternity and ordered lifelong support for Lisa. In 2006, the Appellant sought a DNA test to challenge paternity, which the court denied, citing previous determinations of paternity. The Appellant's subsequent appeals and motions, including challenges to the validity of court orders and allegations of fraud by his attorneys and ex-wife, were dismissed or not pursued.

Procedural History

• District Court, February 21, 1987: Finalized divorce decree, establishing Appellant's paternity and child support obligations.
• District Court, November 26, 2002: Modified child support, reaffirmed Appellant's paternity, and ordered lifelong support for Lisa.
• District Court, 2006: Denied Appellant's motion to compel DNA testing.
• Court of Appeals of New Mexico, March 8, 2012: Affirmed the district court's denial of the motion to compel DNA testing.

Parties' Submissions

• Appellant: Argued for the right to contest paternity through genetic testing, challenged the validity of previous court orders determining paternity and child support obligations, and alleged fraud by attorneys and his ex-wife.
• Respondents: Defended the previous court orders establishing paternity and child support obligations, arguing that the Appellant's attempts to contest paternity were barred by his failure to appeal earlier determinations and by the statute of limitations.

Legal Issues

• Whether the Appellant is entitled to contest paternity through genetic testing after previous judicial determinations of paternity.
• Whether the Appellant's failure to appeal previous determinations of paternity bars him from contesting paternity at a later stage.
• Whether allegations of fraud by attorneys and the ex-wife have merit in the absence of record evidence.

Disposition

• The court affirmed the district court's denial of the Appellant's motion to compel genetic testing and upheld previous determinations of paternity and child support obligations.

Reasons

• The court, per Judge Michael D. Bustamante, with Judges Michael E. Vigil and Linda M. Vanzi concurring, held that the Appellant was barred from contesting paternity due to his failure to appeal previous determinations and the statute of limitations. The court found no merit in the Appellant's allegations of fraud and procedural irregularities due to a lack of evidence in the record. The court also rejected the Appellant's challenge to the validity of the divorce decree, prior court orders, and the distribution of child support payments, citing the absence of these issues in the record and the Appellant's failure to preserve these issues for review.