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

• Petitioner, John Burke, was appointed as the limited kinship guardian of a child by a stipulated order of limited kinship guardianship entered on May 1, 2012. Subsequently, Burke filed a motion for reconsideration and for current and past child support, which the district court denied on May 28, 2013, on the grounds that Burke lacked standing to petition for child support.

Procedural History

• District Court of Bernalillo County, May 28, 2013: Denied Petitioner's motion for reconsideration and for current and past child support.

Parties' Submissions

• Petitioner: Argued that as the limited kinship guardian, he has standing to petition for child support under the Kinship Guardian Act.
• Respondents: Contended that Petitioner should not receive child support because he voluntarily offered to pay for the child's education and care, waived his right to receive child support in the order of limited kinship guardianship, and is not the child's grandfather under New Mexico law.

Legal Issues

• Whether the district court erred in concluding that Petitioner lacks standing to petition for child support.

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals reversed the district court's decision, holding that Petitioner has standing to petition for child support.

Reasons

• The Court of Appeals, with Judge Michael E. Vigil authoring the opinion and Judges Timothy L. Garcia and M. Monica Zamora concurring, found that the district court erred in concluding that Petitioner lacks standing to petition for child support. The appellate court noted that the Kinship Guardian Act allows a guardian to pursue a claim for child support and that the district court had indeed appointed Petitioner as the limited kinship guardian of the child. The Respondents' arguments did not dispute the order appointing Petitioner as guardian nor the statutory provisions granting him the right to seek child support, but rather focused on reasons why they believed Petitioner should not receive child support. These reasons, however, were deemed irrelevant to the question of standing. The appellate court reversed the district court's decision and remanded the case for further proceedings to consider Respondents' arguments regarding the obligation to pay child support.