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 biological mother of a child, facing legal and substance abuse issues in 2004, consented to a kinship guardianship arrangement with the child’s grandparents, believing she would face incarceration. Over the years, the mother rehabilitated, maintained sobriety, secured employment, and complied with probation conditions. In 2007, the mother sought to revoke the kinship guardianship, asserting her readiness to resume parental responsibilities. The grandparents, who had been the child’s primary caretakers, opposed the revocation, citing concerns about the child’s best interests and their established bond with the child.

Procedural History

• District Court, September 12, 2007: The court denied the grandparents' motion to dismiss and ruled that the mother had demonstrated clear and convincing evidence of changed circumstances, indicating her readiness to resume custody. The court ordered mediation and transition planning but deferred final revocation of the guardianship until mediation was completed.
• District Court, October 30, 2007: The court appointed a guardian ad litem (GAL) and set an evidentiary hearing to address the grandparents’ motion to set aside the prior ruling.
• District Court, December 6, 2007: The court implemented a transition plan to reintegrate the child into the mother’s care and reclassified the case as a petition for grandparent visitation.
• District Court, January 7, 2008: The court issued an order granting the mother sole physical custody and established a visitation schedule for the grandparents.

Parties' Submissions

• Appellants (Grandparents): Argued that they were not properly served, the court exceeded the scope of the September 12 hearing, and statutory procedures under the Kinship Guardianship Act were not followed. They contended that the mother’s motion lacked a proper transition plan, the court applied the wrong legal standard, and there was insufficient evidence of changed circumstances. They also claimed their due process rights were violated.
• Respondent (Mother): Asserted that she had rehabilitated, maintained sobriety, and was now fit to resume custody. She argued that the kinship guardianship was no longer necessary and that revocation was in the child’s best interests. She also contended that the grandparents had waived their objections to service and notice by participating in the proceedings.

Legal Issues

• Was there adequate service and notice provided to the grandparents?
• Did the Uniform Child-Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act (UCCJEA) apply to this case?
• Were statutory procedures under the Kinship Guardianship Act followed, including the appointment of a GAL and the sufficiency of the mother’s motion?
• Did the district court apply the correct legal standard in revoking the kinship guardianship?
• Was there sufficient evidence to support the revocation of the kinship guardianship?
• Were the grandparents’ due process rights violated?

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court’s decision to revoke the kinship guardianship and grant sole custody to the mother.

Reasons

Per Robles J. (Bustamante and Kennedy JJ. concurring):

• Service and Notice: The court found that the grandparents had waived their objections to service and notice by participating in the proceedings and receiving all relevant documents. There was no requirement to serve the child, as he was under 14 years old.
• UCCJEA: The court held that the UCCJEA did not apply, as all parties were residents of New Mexico, and no interstate jurisdictional issues were present.
• Statutory Procedure: The court determined that the district court substantially complied with the Kinship Guardianship Act. A GAL was appointed before the final revocation, and the mother’s motion included a transition plan, even if it was embedded in the body of the motion rather than as a separate attachment.
• Legal Standard: The court concluded that the district court applied the correct standard, considering both the mother’s fitness and the child’s best interests. The grandparents failed to demonstrate extraordinary circumstances or serious parental inadequacy to rebut the parental preference presumption.
• Sufficiency of Evidence: The court found sufficient evidence of changed circumstances, including the mother’s sustained sobriety, employment, and compliance with probation. These changes supported the revocation of the guardianship.
• Due Process: The court declined to address the grandparents’ due process claims, as they were raised for the first time on appeal and lacked sufficient development and authority.