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 the appellant, referred to as Father, disputing the child support judgment against him. He contends that the hearing officer did not properly credit him for payments previously made towards this obligation.

Procedural History

• State ex rel., HSD & Angela Hazelet v. Arnaudville, No. 30,761, slip op. (N.M. Ct. App. April 11, 2011): The Court of Appeals remanded the case for further proceedings regarding Father's child support obligations.

Parties' Submissions

• Appellant (Father): Argued that the hearing officer on remand failed to credit him for monies previously paid towards the child support judgment.
• Appellees (Human Services Department and Angela Hazelet): [Not applicable or not found]

Legal Issues

• Whether the hearing officer on remand properly credited the Father for payments made towards the child support judgment.
• Whether the hearing officer correctly assessed Father’s retroactive child support arrears owed to Mother.
• Whether the hearing officer correctly assessed Father’s obligation to reimburse HSD for public assistance, giving proper credit for any in-kind support provided.

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court’s ruling that adopted the recommendation of the hearing officer regarding Father’s support obligations.

Reasons

• Per CELIA FOY CASTILLO, Chief Judge (JAMES J. WECHSLER, Judge and JONATHAN B. SUTIN, Judge concurring):
  The Court remained unpersuaded by Father's arguments against the hearing officer's decision on remand. It was determined that the hearing officer acted within the scope of the Court of Appeals' remand instructions and properly credited Father for payments made. The Court also found that the hearing officer correctly assessed Father’s retroactive child support arrears owed to Mother and his obligation to reimburse HSD for public assistance, crediting him for any in-kind support provided. These conclusions were based on the careful review of the proceedings and relevant statutory and case law, affirming the hearing officer's decisions on these matters.