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

• Three individuals, the Mother, her current partner (Demmon), and her former husband (Bennett), entered into an agreement to co-parent one minor child, with Demmon being the biological father. Disputes arose, leading to a 2012 district court parenting order that awarded joint legal custody to all three adults and held the Mother and Demmon in contempt for violating vacation and visitation provisions. The Mother and Demmon challenged this order, arguing against Bennett's custody rights as a non-parent and the contempt ruling (paras 1-3, 12).

Procedural History

• District Court, 2012: Issued a parenting order awarding joint legal custody to Mother, Demmon, and Bennett and held Mother and Demmon in contempt for violating vacation and visitation provisions.
• Court of Appeals: Affirmed the district court's decision.
• Supreme Court of the State of New Mexico: Granted certiorari to review the district court's decision on custody and contempt issues.

Parties' Submissions

• Mother and Demmon: Argued that Bennett, being not the child's father, should not be awarded custody and contended that the district court abused its discretion by holding them in contempt of court.
• Bennett: Defended the district court's decision, presumably supporting the award of joint legal custody and the contempt ruling against Mother and Demmon (N/A for specific arguments).

Legal Issues

• Whether the district court erred by awarding joint legal custody to two biological parents and a third person who lacks parental standing.
• Whether the district court abused its discretion by holding Mother and Demmon in contempt of court.

Disposition

• The Supreme Court held that Demmon is the child's legal father under the Uniform Parentage Act and that the memorandum of agreement does not confer parental rights on Bennett.
• The contempt order against Mother and Demmon was vacated.

Reasons

• The Supreme Court found that the parties had effectively settled the issue of paternity when they entered into the memorandum of agreement, which was adopted by the district court as a stipulated order, making Demmon the child's legal father. The agreement did not confer parental rights on Bennett, and the district court could not award legal custody to Bennett over the objections of the child's legal parents without a finding of unfitness or extraordinary circumstances. The contempt order was vacated because it was neither a valid civil nor criminal contempt order, reflecting a misunderstanding of the substantive and procedural law governing contempt proceedings (paras 3, 21-24, 43-44).