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 custody dispute where the child and mother have lived in Nebraska since 2014, and the father moved to California in 2017, selling his Albuquerque residence in 2018. The district court was requested to issue a permanent custody order in 2019, by which time none of the parties resided in New Mexico (para 3).

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Respondent-Appellant (Father): Argued that he has been denied his right to appeal and raised concerns over the inefficiencies and costs associated with pursuing litigation in New Mexico without obtaining a final appealable determination on the custody issue before the district court lost jurisdiction. He also suggested that the district court engaged in gamesmanship or wrongdoing by entering temporary orders, declining his requests to bifurcate the proceedings, and then failing to enter a final appealable decision prior to losing jurisdiction (paras 2, 4-5).
• Petitioner-Appellee (N/A): [Not applicable or not found]

Legal Issues

• Whether the New Mexico Court of Appeals should uphold the district court's determination that New Mexico no longer has jurisdiction over the custody matters in this case (para 1).
• Whether the father's constitutional right to appeal was denied (para 2).

Disposition

• The motion to amend the docketing statement was denied (para 2).
• The district court's determination that New Mexico no longer has jurisdiction over the custody matters was affirmed (para 6).

Reasons

• The decision was authored by Judge Julie J. Vargas, with Judges Jacqueline R. Medina and Zachary A. Ives concurring. The court found that the father's constitutional right to appeal was not denied as the instant appeal from the district court’s final order represented the fulfillment of that right. The court also held that the district court correctly concluded it no longer retained exclusive continuing jurisdiction over the custody matters, based on the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act (UCCJEA) jurisdictional provisions, given that none of the parties resided in New Mexico by the time the request for a permanent custody order was made. The court acknowledged the father's frustrations regarding the inefficiencies and costs of litigation but found these did not alter the jurisdictional analysis. The court declined to infer misconduct or wrongdoing by the district court despite the father's suggestions, attributing the failure to enter a final custody order to the parties' relocations and the sudden resignation of the presiding judge (paras 2-6).