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 petitioner-appellant seeking visitation rights with her grandson, which was denied by the district court. The petitioner-appellant challenged the district court's decision, arguing it failed to consider the best interests of the child by not verifying the respondent's offers of proof, not appointing a guardian ad litem or a Rule 11-706 expert, and not conducting an in-camera interview with the child. Additionally, the petitioner-appellant contested the requirement to pay certain attorney fees of the respondent (paras 1-2).

Procedural History

• District Court of Bernalillo County, Jane C. Levy, District Judge: Memorandum order denying petitioner's motion to reconsider and denying visitation with her grandson.

Parties' Submissions

• Petitioner-Appellant: Argued that the district court erred by not considering the best interests of the child, failing to verify the respondent's offers of proof, not appointing a guardian ad litem or a Rule 11-706 expert, not conducting an in-camera interview with the child, and objected to the requirement to pay certain of the respondent's attorney fees (para 2).
• Respondent-Appellee: [Not applicable or not found]

Legal Issues

• Whether the district court erred in denying the petitioner visitation rights by not considering the best interests of the child, failing to verify offers of proof by the respondent, not appointing a guardian ad litem or a Rule 11-706 expert, or not conducting an in-camera interview with the child.
• Whether the petitioner should be required to pay certain of the respondent's attorney fees.

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's decision denying the petitioner's motion to reconsider and denying her visitation with her grandson. The Court also denied the motion to amend regarding the issue of attorney fees (para 5).

Reasons

• VARGAS, Judge (J. MILES HANISEE, Chief Judge, and LINDA M. VANZI, Judge, concurring): The Court found the petitioner's arguments in her memorandum in opposition unpersuasive and affirmed the proposed summary disposition. The petitioner failed to present new facts or arguments that would persuade the Court that the summary disposition was incorrect. Specifically, the petitioner did not meet the criteria for amending the docketing statement regarding the attorney fees issue, as she cited no authority and did not demonstrate the district court's award of attorney fees was erroneous as a matter of law. The Court emphasized the petitioner's responsibility to clearly point out errors in fact or law and found her arguments regarding attorney fees non-viable, leading to the denial of the motion to amend (paras 2-4).