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

• Petitioner and Respondent were in a domestic relationship and decided to have a child together, which led to the birth of R.W. in Oklahoma in April 2007. After moving to New Mexico in September 2008, their relationship deteriorated, and in May 2009, Petitioner left the home. Despite this, she continued to share parenting responsibilities until September 2012, when Respondent cut off contact between R.W. and Petitioner. Subsequently, Respondent sought an order of protection against Petitioner, which was denied. Petitioner then initiated action to establish parentage and determine custody and timesharing with R.W. in May 2013 (paras 3-4).

Procedural History

• District Court, May 20, 2013: Petitioner initiated action to establish parentage and determine custody and timesharing with R.W. (para 4).
• District Court, December 2013: Held a hearing on the issue of jurisdiction and stayed proceedings pending a decision in an Oklahoma guardianship case (para 7).
• District Court, March 12, 2015: Issued an order declining jurisdiction over the child custody dispute, favoring Oklahoma as the forum for any disputes (para 24).

Parties' Submissions

• Petitioner: Argued that New Mexico has jurisdiction under the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act, challenged the district court's findings, and claimed violations of due process and equal protection rights due to the failure to address requests for interim visitation (paras 1, 9).
• Respondent: Objected to the district court’s jurisdiction, arguing New Mexico was an inconvenient forum and that it would not be in the best interests of R.W. for the district court to exercise its jurisdiction (para 8).

Legal Issues

• Whether New Mexico has jurisdiction over the action pursuant to the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act.
• Whether the district court erred in making findings on the merits of the parentage and child custody claim.
• Whether the district court violated Petitioner's right to due process by failing to address her requests for interim visitation.
• Whether the district court’s rulings violated equal protection (para 9).

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals reversed the district court’s decision and remanded for further proceedings (para 35).

Reasons

• The Court of Appeals, with Judge M. Monica Zamora writing, concluded that the district court had jurisdiction under the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act as New Mexico was R.W.'s home state at the time the petition was filed. The court found that the district court erred in declining jurisdiction without considering the required factors to determine if another state was a more appropriate forum. The court also noted that the district court's findings on the merits of the parentage and child custody claim were immaterial to the question of jurisdiction and should be considered surplusage. The court did not address Petitioner's constitutional arguments, as the jurisdictional issue was deemed to be resolved first. On remand, the district court is instructed to address whether Petitioner has standing to establish parentage and, if so, to then address the merits of Petitioner’s petition for determination of parentage, custody, timesharing, and child support, as well as Petitioner’s motions for interim visitation and custody (paras 10-35).