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 guardianship of two children, Sean B. and Michael B., between their biological mother, Stephanie Bourgoyne (now Stephanie Baldwin), and their guardian, Patricia Bourgoyne. The children had been under Patricia's care for seven years, during which time Stephanie had limited contact and provided little financial assistance. Stephanie sought to revoke the guardianship, arguing for a change in circumstances and asserting that revocation was in the children's best interests.

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Appellant (Stephanie Bourgoyne k/n/a Stephanie Baldwin): Argued that the guardian ad litem's (GAL) report was inadmissible hearsay and prejudicial, challenged the denial of her discovery requests for the children’s medical, therapist, and school records, and contended there was insufficient evidence to support the district court’s decision. She also argued that the district court did not properly apply the parental preference presumption at the revocation hearing.
• Appellee (Patricia Bourgoyne): Supported the district court's order adopting the GAL's recommendations and declining to revoke guardianship, arguing that the GAL's report was admissible and its probative value outweighed any prejudice. Also, supported the limitation on discovery and argued that the appellant failed to demonstrate a change in circumstances or that revocation was in the children's best interests.

Legal Issues

• Whether the guardian ad litem's (GAL) report was admissible despite being alleged hearsay.
• Whether the district court erred in denying the appellant's discovery requests for the children’s medical, therapist, and school records.
• Whether there was sufficient evidence to support the district court’s decision to maintain the guardianship.
• Whether the district court properly applied the parental preference presumption at the revocation hearing.

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court’s order adopting the GAL's recommendations and declining to revoke guardianship.

Reasons

• Per LINDA M. VANZI, Judge (RODERICK T. KENNEDY, Judge, J. MILES HANISEE, Judge concurring):
  The GAL's report was deemed admissible, with its bases not required to be admissible in evidence under Rule 11-703 NMRA. The GAL's duty to investigate and report on the child's best interests justified the report's admission (paras 2-3).
  The court found no abuse of discretion in denying the appellant's discovery requests, reasoning that the requested records were unlikely to assist the appellant in demonstrating a change of circumstances (paras 4-5).
  The evidence was considered sufficient to support the district court's decision, with the appellant failing to prove a change in circumstances or that revocation of guardianship was in the children's best interests. The children's well-being under the appellee's care for seven years, along with the appellant's limited involvement, were key factors (para 6).
  The court concluded that the appellant did not meet her initial burden of demonstrating changed circumstances or that revocation was in the children's best interests, rendering the argument on the parental preference presumption moot (para 7).