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 North Carolina since 2003, leading to a jurisdictional issue regarding the state's authority over custody matters. The father appealed an order that concluded the courts of New Mexico no longer have jurisdiction over the custody issues due to the child's significant connections and substantial evidence being located outside of the state.

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Respondent-Appellant (Father): Asserts that the application of the laws of New Mexico, including the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act (UCCJEA), violates his constitutional rights by preventing him from developing a relationship with the child. He also suggests that the state must have lost jurisdiction as early as 2004.
• Petitioner-Appellee (Mother): [Not applicable or not found]

Legal Issues

• Whether the courts of New Mexico have jurisdiction over custody matters given that the child and mother have lived in North Carolina since 2003.
• Whether the application of the UCCJEA in New Mexico violates the father's constitutional rights.

Disposition

• The district court's judgment that New Mexico courts no longer have jurisdiction over the custody matters is affirmed.

Reasons

• The decision was made by a panel consisting of Judges Cynthia A. Fry, James J. Wechsler, and M. Monica Zamora. The court based its decision on the fact that the child and mother have resided in North Carolina since 2003, which means the child no longer has a significant connection with New Mexico, and substantial evidence related to custody is no longer available in the state. The father's memorandum in opposition did not challenge the court's analysis on jurisdiction, nor did it clearly articulate the constitutional arguments against the application of the UCCJEA. The court noted its policy against reviewing unclear or undeveloped arguments. It acknowledged the challenges compliance with the law might present to the father but emphasized that the validity of the laws and jurisdictional limitations of the UCCJEA cannot be disregarded. The father was advised to present his arguments in the appropriate tribunal.