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

• Two women, Soon and Kammann, shared a desire to have children together. They began assisted reproduction treatments before marrying, and Soon conceived through intrauterine insemination ten months into their marriage. The relationship deteriorated during the pregnancy, leading Soon to move out and file for divorce. Despite the separation, Kammann was involved in prenatal care, visited the twins after birth, discussed their names, and paid child support. A custody dispute ensued, focusing on Kammann's genetic connection to the twins born during the marriage (paras 3-4).

Procedural History

• Soon v. Kammann, 2022-NMCA-066, 521 P.3d 110: The Court of Appeals reversed the district court's decision that Kammann's admission of not being a genetic parent rebutted the presumption of parentage under the UPA (para 8).

Parties' Submissions

• Petitioner (Soon): Argued that Kammann lacked standing under the UPA because she is not genetically related to the twins, asserting that the marriage-based presumption of parentage was rebutted by Kammann's admission of not being a genetic or biological parent (para 5).
• Respondent (Kammann): Contended that the fact the twins were born during the marriage establishes her standing as a presumed parent under the UPA and case law, regardless of genetic connection (para 6).

Legal Issues

• Whether a person’s admission to not being a genetic parent of a child is sufficient to rebut a presumption of parentage under the New Mexico Uniform Parentage Act (UPA) (para 1).
• Whether the district court's requirement for genetic testing to rebut the marital presumption of parentage was preserved for appeal (para 13).

Disposition

• The Supreme Court of the State of New Mexico held that Kammann’s admission under oath that she is not a genetic or biological mother of the twins is not sufficient to rebut her presumption of parentage. It affirmed the Court of Appeals' decision, establishing Kammann as a legal parent of the twin children (paras 10, 28).

Reasons

• The Court, led by Justice Vigil with concurrence from Chief Justice Thomson, Justices Bacon, Franchini, and Mercer, reasoned that the UPA requires specific procedures for rebutting a presumption of parentage, including genetic testing under certain conditions. The Court emphasized that the best interest of the child is paramount and must be considered before ordering genetic testing. It rejected the argument that a lack of genetic connection automatically rebuts the presumption of parentage, highlighting the UPA's focus on the child's welfare over genetic ties. The Court also clarified that issues, not arguments, need to be preserved for appeal and that the central issue of overcoming the marriage presumption was indeed preserved. The decision underscores the broad, inclusive definition of parentage under the UPA, aligning with the legislative intent to ensure children are supported and cared for by two parents, irrespective of genetic connection (paras 10-27).