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 dispute between a father and a mother regarding the role of a parenting coordinator and the enforcement of a parenting plan. The father sought to remove the parenting coordinator, arguing that their role was no longer necessary after reintegration with his daughter. He also sought to enforce visitation orders and objected to being required to attend counseling. The district court denied both motions, leading to the father's appeal (paras 1-3).
Procedural History
- District Court of Bernalillo County: Denied the father's motions to remove the parenting coordinator and to enforce the parenting plan (para 1).
Parties' Submissions
- Appellant (Father): Argued that the parenting coordinator was no longer necessary as reintegration with his daughter had been achieved. He also contended that the district court abused its discretion by denying his motion to enforce visitation orders and requiring him to attend counseling (paras 2-3).
- Appellee (Mother): [Not applicable or not found]
Legal Issues
- Whether the district court erred in denying the father's motion to remove the parenting coordinator.
- Whether the district court abused its discretion in denying the father's motion to enforce visitation orders and requiring him to attend counseling.
Disposition
- The New Mexico Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's order denying the father's motions to remove the parenting coordinator and to enforce the parenting plan (para 4).
Reasons
Per Attrep CJ. (Bogardus and Ives JJ. concurring):
The court found that the father failed to demonstrate how the parenting coordinator acted outside their authority or how their continued involvement was not in the best interest of the children. The court noted that the parenting coordinator's role extended beyond reintegration and included assisting with parenting coordination, custody, timesharing, and other issues. The father did not provide new facts or legal arguments to challenge the district court's decision. The court also held that the father did not show how the denial of his motion to enforce visitation orders was not in the children's best interest. The district court's decisions were within its discretion, and there was no manifest abuse of discretion (paras 2-4).