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 divorce and child custody proceedings initiated in May 2006 between the Father and Mother of four children, including the Daughter. The Father, dissatisfied with the Guardian Ad Litem (GAL)'s recommendations favoring the Mother, engaged in various legal actions against the GAL, including lawsuits and disciplinary complaints. Additionally, the Father published material on a website criticizing the GAL, leading to legal disputes over his standing to sue on behalf of his Daughter and the legality of his online publications.

Procedural History

• District Court, Santa Fe County, Sarah M. Singleton and Barbara Vigil, District Judges: Dismissed the Father's tort action brought on behalf of his Daughter against both Mother and the GAL and ordered the Father to remove and refrain from republishing certain material on his website.

Parties' Submissions

• Father: Argued that the GAL and Mother had acted against the Daughter's interests, alleging battery, assault, emotional distress, and breaches of fiduciary duty by the Mother, and emotional distress, breaches of fiduciary duty, invasion of privacy, and prima facie tort by the GAL.
• Mother and GAL: Moved to dismiss the suit, arguing the Father lacked standing to sue on behalf of the Daughter and that the GAL was immune from suit.

Legal Issues

• Whether the Father had standing to sue on behalf of his Daughter against the Mother and the GAL.
• Whether the GAL was immune from the lawsuit in her capacity as guardian ad litem.
• Whether the district court's order to remove and refrain from republishing certain material on the Father's website was constitutionally valid.

Disposition

• The appeal regarding the Father's standing to sue on behalf of his Daughter was granted in part and denied in part.
• The district court's dismissal of the Father's suit against the GAL was affirmed in part and reversed in part.
• The district court's Internet Order restraining the publication of the disciplinary complaint was reversed.

Reasons

• The Father's lawsuit against the Mother was moot due to a financial settlement agreement, but the lawsuit against the GAL was not rendered moot by this agreement (paras 12-16).
  The Father had standing to sue the GAL based on the rule allowing parents to bring suit on behalf of their minor children and the specific allegations against the GAL (paras 17-19).
  The GAL was found to be immune from suit for most of the Father's claims except for the allegation involving collusion with the Mother to block the Daughter's phone calls to her siblings, which exceeded the scope of her appointment (paras 20-31).
  The district court had subject matter jurisdiction to issue the Internet Order as it was a court of general jurisdiction with the authority to issue injunctions regarding speech (paras 32-37).
  The Internet Order was reversed because it failed to meet constitutional standards for restricting speech, specifically because the district court did not make findings that the speech was defamatory (paras 38-46).