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 between Yvonne Gott (Mother) and Robert Edward Gott (Father) regarding the relocation of their seven-year-old daughter (Child) from Santa Fe, New Mexico to Ramah, New Mexico. Following their divorce, both parents had resided with Child in Santa Fe for many years, sharing near-equal division of physical custody and joint legal custody. Mother's motion to relocate with Child was denied by the district court, which instead adopted an advisory consultant’s recommendation to transfer primary physical custody to Father if Mother moved to Ramah (para 1).

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Petitioner-Appellant (Mother): Contended that the district court's failure to hold a hearing on her written objections to the advisory consultant’s recommendations denied her due process. Additionally, argued that the district court improperly delegated judicial authority to a therapist, a doctor, and the advisory consultant in its parenting order (paras 2, 10).
• Respondent-Appellee (Father): [Not applicable or not found]

Legal Issues

• Whether the district court’s failure to hold a hearing on Mother’s written objections to the advisory consultant’s recommendations denied Mother due process.
• Whether the district court improperly delegated judicial authority to a therapist, a doctor, and the advisory consultant in its parenting order.

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court’s order denying Mother’s motion to relocate and transferring primary physical custody to Father if Mother moved, maintaining the status quo if she stayed in Santa Fe (para 2).

Reasons

• The Court of Appeals, comprising Judge Jane B. Yohalem, with Judges Shammara H. Henderson and Gerald E. Baca concurring, provided the following reasons:
  Due Process Claim: The court found that Mother failed to preserve her due process claim for review by not objecting at the district court level. It was noted that Mother was informed that written objections might be her only opportunity to challenge the advisory consultant’s recommendations and that she had a chance to request a hearing. The court concluded that Mother’s failure to preserve the issue precluded appellate review (paras 4-9).
  Improper Delegation Claim: The court determined that Mother failed to support her claim that the district court improperly delegated judicial decision-making authority with a developed argument. Mother did not provide a sufficient explanation of why the district court’s order requiring parents to follow the recommendations of professionals working with Child invaded parents’ Fourteenth Amendment substantive due process rights. The court emphasized the need for well-supported arguments and clear application of law to facts, which was lacking in Mother’s brief. Consequently, the court affirmed the district court’s judgment based on a presumption of correctness due to the inadequately briefed issues (paras 10-15).