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 custody dispute between the Mother and Father of a child born on December 22, 2008. The parents never married, and the child lived with the Mother and her parents while she completed nursing school. The Father, living in South Dakota, had limited involvement in the child's early life but visited and hosted visits. In 2009, the Mother filed for paternity, child support, and custody determination, resulting in her being awarded sole legal and physical custody in 2010. In 2013, following allegations of severe discipline by the Mother's boyfriend, the Father obtained a protection order and stipulated custody arrangement, leading to shared custody and a protective order extension. The case was transferred to Bernalillo County District Court, where further motions led to the appointment of a Guardian ad Litem (GAL) and eventual modification of custody arrangements (paras 2-4).

Procedural History

• District Court of Bernalillo County, 2010: Awarded Mother sole legal and physical custody of Child, subject to Father’s right to visitation.
• McKinley County District Court, Summer 2013: Issued an order of protection for Child and stipulated order awarding custody to Father with Mother’s visitation rights, later transferred to Bernalillo County District Court.

Parties' Submissions

• Mother: Argued against the GAL's recommendations, objected to the modification of custody without findings of substantial and material change in circumstances, claimed violation of due process rights, and contended that the child was placed with non-parents without a finding of unfitness or exceptional circumstances.
• Father: Responded to Mother's arguments, particularly noting that the issue of substantial and material change in circumstances was not preserved for appellate review.

Legal Issues

• Whether substantial evidence supports the district court’s judgment and order.
• Whether the district court modified custody without findings of substantial and material change in circumstances.
• Whether the GAL exceeded the scope of her appointment and supported another party rather than the best interests of the child.
• Whether the district court violated the Mother’s due process rights.
• Whether the child was removed from the Mother and placed with non-parents absent a finding of unfitness or exceptional circumstances.
• Whether the Mother was deprived of procedural and substantive protections available in a proceeding to terminate parental rights.

Disposition

• The final judgment and order of the district court, which modified joint legal custody of the child with the Father having primary physical custody and decision-making authority, granting the Mother specified timesharing rights, and ordering other measures, is affirmed.

Reasons

• The Court of Appeals, led by Chief Judge Michael E. Vigil, found that the district court's decisions were supported by substantial evidence and did not constitute an abuse of discretion. The Mother's arguments regarding the GAL's recommendations, due process violations, and the lack of findings of unfitness or exceptional circumstances were rejected. The appellate court determined that the Mother had adequate notice and opportunity to be heard, thus receiving all due process rights in the custody modification proceedings. The court also clarified that the parental preference doctrine does not apply in disputes between natural parents and that the protections in termination of parental rights cases were not applicable here (paras 9-23).