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 Petitioner, a self-represented litigant, challenges the jurisdiction of New Mexico over the custody proceedings. The contention arises from the Respondent's actions of bringing the child to New Mexico, which the Petitioner deems unjustifiable. The Petitioner argues that these actions should prevent New Mexico from taking jurisdiction under the Uniform Child-Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act (UCCJEA).

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Petitioner-Appellant: Argues that New Mexico does not have jurisdiction over the custody proceedings due to the Respondent's unjustifiable conduct in bringing the child to New Mexico. Maintains that the district court committed several errors, depriving him of his rights.
• Respondent-Appellee: [Not applicable or not found]

Legal Issues

• Whether New Mexico has jurisdiction over the custody proceedings under the Uniform Child-Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act (UCCJEA) despite the Respondent's actions of bringing the child to New Mexico.
• Whether the district court committed errors that deprived the Petitioner of his rights.

Disposition

• The motion to amend the docketing statement was denied as non-viable.
• The motion for expedited decision was denied as moot.
• The district court’s order was affirmed.

Reasons

• J. MILES HANISEE, Chief Judge, with MEGAN P. DUFFY, Judge, and ZACHARY A. IVES, Judge, concurring: The Court found that the Petitioner did not present any new facts, law, or argument that would persuade the Court that the notice of proposed disposition was erroneous. The Court also noted that oral pronouncements do not reflect the ruling of any court, addressing the Petitioner's contention regarding an oral statement from a Texas court. Furthermore, the Court determined that the Petitioner's request to amend his docketing statement to include issues related to service was non-viable, as he failed to demonstrate any prejudice suffered from the alleged lack of service. Consequently, the Court affirmed the district court's order based on the reasons stated in the notice of proposed disposition and the analysis provided in the memorandum opinion (paras 1-5).