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

• In March 2017, the Petitioner filed a petition to establish paternity and seek child support from the Respondent for a child born on September 11, 1998, who was still attending high school. The Respondent acknowledged paternity but contested the child support claim, arguing that the Petitioner waived the right to "back pay" since the child had reached the age of majority, suggesting that any action for retroactive child support should belong to the now adult child (para 2).

Procedural History

• District Court of Lea County, Lee A. Kirksey, District Judge: Dismissed the Petitioner's action for retroactive child support under the New Mexico Uniform Parentage Act (UPA), concluding that the Petitioner lacked standing because the child had reached the age of majority (para 1).

Parties' Submissions

• Petitioner: Argued for the establishment of paternity and child support from the Respondent for their child who, despite having reached the age of majority, was still in high school (para 2).
• Respondent: Admitted paternity but denied owing child support, arguing that the Petitioner waived the right to request "back pay" for child support since the child had reached the age of majority. The action for retroactive child support, according to the Respondent, belonged to the now adult child (para 2).

Legal Issues

• Whether the Petitioner has standing to bring a child support action under the New Mexico Uniform Parentage Act when her child has reached the age of majority (para 3).

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals of New Mexico reversed the district court's decision, granting the Petitioner standing to bring a parentage and child support action under the UPA (para 13).

Reasons

• Per Linda M. Vanzi, Chief Judge (Henry M. Bohnhoff, Judge, and Jennifer L. Attrep, Judge, concurring): The court determined that the UPA grants standing to a broad range of individuals, including the mother of the child, to maintain a parentage action. The court found the district court's interpretation, which limited standing to the now adult child, to be incorrect. The UPA's language clearly allows the mother to bring a child support action, and there is no statutory indication that the list of individuals with standing is in order of preference or that it limits standing to the adult child. The court emphasized that the statute's plain language and logical interpretation support the Petitioner's standing to seek retroactive child support, even after the child reached the age of majority, as long as the petition is filed within three years after the child reaches the age of majority (paras 3-12).