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 arose from a highly publicized child abuse and neglect proceeding involving a minor child, Anamarie M. The children's court excluded the media from the courtroom and issued a gag order prohibiting all parties from commenting on the case. The media petitioned the Supreme Court of New Mexico to overturn these decisions, arguing that their exclusion and the gag order violated their rights (paras 1-2).
Procedural History
- Children's Court, September 5, 2000: The court excluded the media from the proceedings and issued a gag order prohibiting all parties from commenting on the case (paras 1-2).
Parties' Submissions
- Petitioners (Media Organizations): Argued that the exclusion of the media violated their statutory right of access under Section 32A-4-20(D) and that the confidentiality requirement was moot due to prior extensive media coverage. They also contended that the gag order was procedurally deficient as it lacked factual findings supporting a compelling state interest and did not consider less restrictive alternatives (paras 3, 7).
- Respondents (Children's Court and State of New Mexico): Defended the exclusion of the media, citing the statutory requirement of confidentiality to protect the child’s best interests. They also argued that the gag order was initially stipulated by all parties and was necessary to shield the child and family from media attention (paras 2, 6).
Legal Issues
- Whether the children's court properly excluded the media from the courtroom under Section 32A-4-20(D) (paras 2-5).
- Whether the gag order imposed by the children's court was procedurally valid (paras 6-8).
Disposition
- The Supreme Court of New Mexico upheld the exclusion of the media from the courtroom (para 5).
- The Court found the gag order procedurally deficient and ordered it dissolved, allowing the children's court to reinstate it only with proper factual findings (paras 7-9).
Reasons
Per Curiam:
The Court reasoned that Section 32A-4-20(D) grants the media a limited statutory right of access to child abuse and neglect proceedings, conditioned on maintaining confidentiality for the child and their family. Given the extensive pre-hearing media coverage, confidentiality could not be preserved, and thus, the media had no statutory right of access. The children's court acted within its discretion to exclude the media, prioritizing the child’s best interests (paras 3-5).
Regarding the gag order, the Court held that it was procedurally deficient because it lacked specific factual findings to justify a compelling state interest and did not consider less restrictive alternatives. The Court clarified that the children's court retained jurisdiction over the gag order despite the pending petition for an extraordinary writ. The gag order was dissolved, but the children's court was permitted to reinstate it with proper findings if necessary (paras 7-9).