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 custody of two children, P.P. and B.P-R., who share the same biological mother but have different fathers. The appellant, the children's grandmother, was previously appointed as kinship guardian for P.P. and was granted joint legal and sole physical custody of B.P-R., pending a transition to the father's custody. The district court later revoked these orders, granting custody of the children to their biological mother based on her fitness to parent.

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Appellant (Grandmother): Contended that the district court failed to provide adequate notice of the proceedings, did not comply with the Kinship Guardianship Act (KGA), improperly considered ex parte evidence, exhibited bias towards the appointed parenting coordinator, and abused its discretion in denying a motion related to the parenting coordinator. Additionally, argued that these errors constituted cumulative error.
• Respondent-Appellee (Biological Mother): [Not applicable or not found]
• Intervenor-Appellee (State of New Mexico ex rel. Human Services Department): [Not applicable or not found]
• Other Parties: [Not applicable or not found]

Legal Issues

• Whether the district court violated the appellant's due process rights by failing to give proper notice of the hearing.
• Whether the district court failed to comply with the requirements of the Kinship Guardianship Act in revoking the appellant's kinship guardianship.
• Whether the district court improperly considered and relied on ex parte evidence.
• Whether the district court exhibited bias in favor of the appointed parenting coordinator.
• Whether the district court abused its discretion in denying the appellant's motion related to the parenting coordinator.
• Whether the alleged errors by the district court resulted in cumulative error.

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals reversed the district court's orders revoking the appellant's appointment as kinship guardian and granting custody to the biological mother, remanding for further proceedings consistent with the opinion.

Reasons

• The Court of Appeals, led by Chief Judge Hanisee with Judges Attrep and Zamora concurring, found that the district court erred in two major respects. First, it failed to give the appellant adequate notice of the issues to be decided at the hearing, violating fundamental requirements for notice and the opportunity to present evidence (paras 5-7). Second, the district court did not comply with the statutory procedures mandated by the Kinship Guardianship Act in revoking the appellant's kinship guardianship, as it did not follow the required process for revocation, including the lack of a motion with a proposed transition plan (paras 8-9). The Court of Appeals did not address the appellant's remaining arguments due to the decision to reverse based on the primary issues identified. The decision emphasizes the importance of due process and adherence to statutory requirements in custody and guardianship proceedings (paras 4, 10-11).