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 Plaintiff, a self-represented inmate, filed a complaint against the Defendant, who is the guardian of his children. The complaint was based on claims of intentional alienation of his children’s affections, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and loss of consortium. The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant's actions and care for his children, under her guardianship, have wrongfully alienated his affections from his children.

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Plaintiff: Argued that the Defendant intentionally alienated his children’s affections and inflicted emotional distress upon him, and that he has suffered a loss of consortium as a result. The Plaintiff also contested factual mistakes regarding his child abuse convictions and maintained that he has not lost his parental rights (para 3).
• Defendant: Supported the district court’s order of dismissal, arguing that the Plaintiff’s claims do not constitute recognized causes of action in New Mexico and that the alleged conduct is not actionable in this context (para 1).

Legal Issues

• Whether the Plaintiff’s claim of intentional alienation of his children’s affections is a recognized cause of action in New Mexico.
• Whether the Plaintiff’s claims of intentional infliction of emotional distress and loss of consortium were properly dismissed.
• Whether the Plaintiff’s tort action is an appropriate mechanism to challenge orders from separate litigation affecting his parental rights and the Defendant’s guardianship of the children.

Disposition

• The district court’s order dismissing the Plaintiff’s complaint for failure to state a claim under Rule 1-012(B)(6) NMRA was affirmed (para 4).

Reasons

• The Court, consisting of Judge Julie J. Vargas, Chief Judge J. Miles Hanisee, and Judge Jennifer L. Attrep, unanimously affirmed the district court’s dismissal. The Court found that the Plaintiff’s claim of intentional alienation of his children’s affections is not a recognized cause of action in New Mexico. It also held that the Plaintiff’s remaining claims of intentional infliction of emotional distress and loss of consortium were properly dismissed because the Defendant’s alleged conduct under her guardianship is not actionable by the Plaintiff in this context, and there is no recognized underlying tort of alienation of affections in New Mexico. Furthermore, the Court observed that the Plaintiff’s claims seemed to be an attempt to collaterally attack orders from separate litigation affecting his parental rights, which is not the proper mechanism through a tort action. The Plaintiff’s response to the Court’s notice did not demonstrate error in the proposed analysis, as he did not explain how his allegations constituted recognized and supported causes of action or why he could raise such claims given the existing litigation governing the Defendant’s guardianship of the children (paras 2-4).