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 between Michael J. Spence (Petitioner-Appellee) and Constance V. Spence (Respondent-Appellant) over several domestic relations issues, including custody of their child, child support, and debt equalization. The district court had previously awarded primary physical custody to the Petitioner, with visitation at his discretion. The Respondent challenged this custody arrangement, the sufficiency of evidence supporting the court's decisions, and the handling of child support and debt equalization.

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Petitioner-Appellee: Argued for the continuation of the existing custody arrangement and supported the district court's decisions regarding child support and debt equalization.
• Respondent-Appellant: Challenged the district court's custody decision, arguing it was based on insufficient evidence and that there had been no change in circumstances to justify the existing arrangement. Also contested the calculation and handling of child support, both prospectively and regarding arrears, as well as the district court's approach to debt equalization.

Legal Issues

• Whether the district court abused its discretion in continuing the award of primary physical custody to the Petitioner.
• Whether there was sufficient evidence to support the district court's decisions limiting the Respondent's rights to custody and visitation.
• Whether the district court erred in its treatment of child support and debt equalization.

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's order resolving the domestic relations issues in question.

Reasons

• The Court of Appeals, consisting of Judges Michael E. Vigil, James J. Wechsler, and J. Miles Hanisee, unanimously affirmed the district court's decisions. The court found no abuse of discretion in the custody arrangement, noting that the Respondent failed to demonstrate a change in circumstances affecting the child's best interests and that the district court had considered the child's preference, which is a valid consideration under NMSA 1978, § 40-4-9 (1977) (paras 3-4). Regarding the sufficiency of evidence, the court highlighted testimony from the court-appointed guardian ad litem about the Respondent's behavior and its impact on the child, supporting the district court's determinations (para 4). On child support, the Court of Appeals noted that the district court followed the child support guidelines and adopted the Respondent's proposed calculation, finding no error in the prospective award or the handling of arrears. The court also addressed the Respondent's challenges to the district court's handling of debt equalization, finding the calculations accurate and rejecting the Respondent's assertions of error (paras 5-6).