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 adjustment of child support obligations between Katherine Ballard (Petitioner-Appellant) and Tuxie Ballard (Respondent-Appellee), with the State of New Mexico Human Services Department, Child Support Enforcement Division (HSD) intervening as Intervenor-Appellee. The Petitioner sought an upward adjustment of the Respondent's child support obligation, arguing against the district court's use of a specific child support guideline schedule and its failure to include income from the Respondent's side jobs in its calculation. The Respondent, appearing pro se, and the HSD opposed the Petitioner's motion (paras 1-4).

Procedural History

• Default judgment on March 28, 2011: Awarded joint legal custody of the children to both parties, with primary physical custody to the Petitioner and set child support obligation using Worksheet A (para 2).
• December 19, 2012: HSD filed a motion to intervene and a motion to modify the child support obligation downward, which the Petitioner opposed, seeking instead an increase in the obligation (para 3).

Parties' Submissions

• Petitioner-Appellant: Argued for an upward adjustment of the Respondent's child support obligation, challenging the district court's application of Schedule B of the child support guidelines and its exclusion of income from Respondent's side jobs in the obligation calculation (para 1).
• Respondent-Appellee: Opposed the upward adjustment of the child support obligation. The specific arguments of the Respondent are not detailed in the decision (N/A).
• Intervenor-Appellee (HSD): Filed a motion to intervene and sought a downward modification of the Respondent's child support obligation (para 3).

Legal Issues

• Whether the district court erred in using Schedule B of the child support guidelines to determine the Respondent's current support obligation.
• Whether the district court should have included income from Respondent's side jobs in calculating the child support obligation.
• Whether the district court properly granted HSD's motion to intervene (paras 1, 3, 13-14).

Disposition

• The district court's decision to use Schedule B for calculating the current support obligation was affirmed.
• The district court's exclusion of income from Respondent's side jobs in the support calculation was upheld.
• The district court's order granting HSD's motion to intervene was affirmed (para 15).

Reasons

• J. MILES HANISEE, Judge (MICHAEL D. BUSTAMANTE, Judge, LINDA M. VANZI, Judge concurring):
  The district court's application of Schedule B was supported by substantial evidence, considering the shared responsibility custody arrangement and the guidelines set forth in Section 40-4-11.1 (paras 5, 10-12).
  The district court did not err in excluding income from Respondent's side jobs for the purpose of calculating the child support obligation, as including this income would not result in a twenty percent increase in the obligation unless Worksheet A was used, which was not applicable in this case (para 13).
  The intervention by HSD was appropriate, and its motion to modify the child support obligation downward was denied by the district court, leaving no basis to consider the Petitioner's argument against HSD's statutory authority to intervene (para 14).