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 petitioner's appeal against the district court's decision to adopt priority consultations as a court order. The petitioner argued for the enforcement of a priority consultation order requiring the respondent's participation and raised issues regarding the lack of an evidentiary hearing, the non-appointment of a guardian ad litem for her child, and the absence of an expert to discuss her alienation claim (para 2).

Procedural History

• Appeal from the District Court of Santa Fe County, Matthew J. Wilson, District Judge: The district court's order adopting priority consultations as a court order was affirmed.

Parties' Submissions

• Petitioner-Appellant: Argued that the district court should have enforced a priority consultation order requiring the respondent to participate, erred by not holding an evidentiary hearing after objections to the priority consultation recommendations, and failed to appoint a guardian ad litem for her child and an expert to discuss her alienation claim (para 2).
• Respondent-Appellee: [Not applicable or not found]

Legal Issues

• Whether the district court erred in adopting priority consultations as a court order without enforcing a priority consultation order requiring respondent's participation.
• Whether the district court erred by not holding an evidentiary hearing after objections to the priority consultation recommendations.
• Whether the district court erred by not appointing a guardian ad litem for the petitioner's child and an expert to discuss her alienation claim.

Disposition

• The appeal was affirmed, and the district court's order adopting priority consultations as a court order was upheld (para 4).

Reasons

• Per JULIE J. VARGAS, Judge (LINDA M. VANZI, Judge and KRISTINA BOGARDUS, Judge concurring):
  The court found the petitioner's arguments, including additional facts and references to analogous case law in her memorandum in opposition, insufficient to demonstrate that the district court erred in its order or that the appellate court's proposed summary disposition was incorrect (para 2).
  Upon further review, the appellate court concluded that the district court did not abuse its discretion and prioritized the best interests of the child. It noted that the appointment of a guardian ad litem and the admission of expert testimony are within the district court's discretion and that the petitioner failed to clearly demonstrate error on the part of the trial court (para 3).
  The decision was affirmed based on the reasons stated in the notice of proposed disposition and the appellate court's analysis (para 4).