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 the parents of two daughters, Kate and Hannah, regarding child support obligations. Under a parenting plan agreement, the father was to pay $300 per month in child support for Kate, who resided with the mother, until Kate turned 18 or the mother obtained gainful employment. The father was also obligated to support Hannah, who resided with him, until she turned 21 unless justified circumstances, such as threats of violence, arose. The father later obtained a restraining order against Hannah, citing her violent behavior, and Kate moved out of the mother’s residence to live with the father.
Procedural History
- District Court, June 18, 2009: Ordered the father to pay $850 in child support arrears for Kate through June 2009 and directed future payments to another family since Kate no longer resided with either parent.
- District Court, July 1, 2009: Found that the father was justified in requiring Hannah to move out due to her violent behavior, terminating his obligation to support her post-majority.
- District Court, September 10, 2009: Denied the mother’s motion to reconsider the July 1, 2009, order, noting that Hannah had reached the age of majority and the court’s jurisdiction over her had ended.
Parties' Submissions
- Appellant (Mother): Argued that the father should continue paying child support for Kate and Hannah, asserting that the father’s actions, including obtaining a restraining order against Hannah, were attempts to evade his financial obligations. She also claimed the district court was biased in favor of the father.
- Appellee (Father): Contended that his child support obligations for Kate ended when she moved out of the mother’s residence and that his obligation to support Hannah terminated due to her violent behavior, which justified her removal from his home.
Legal Issues
- Was the father obligated to continue paying child support for Kate after she moved out of the mother’s residence?
- Did the father’s obligation to support Hannah until age 21 terminate due to her violent behavior?
- Was the district court biased against the mother in its rulings?
Disposition
- The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court’s rulings, upholding the termination of the father’s child support obligations for both Kate and Hannah and rejecting the mother’s claims of judicial bias.
Reasons
Per Cynthia A. Fry, Chief Judge (Kennedy and Garcia JJ. concurring):
The Court found that the father’s child support obligations were properly terminated based on the terms of the parenting plan agreement and the evidence presented:
Child Support for Kate: The father’s obligation to pay $300 per month to the mother was contingent on Kate residing with her. Since Kate moved out of the mother’s residence, the district court correctly determined that the father’s obligation ended.
Child Support for Hannah: The parenting plan agreement allowed the father to terminate support for Hannah if justified circumstances, such as threats of violence, arose. The district court found that the father was justified in requiring Hannah to move out due to her violent behavior, supported by a restraining order. Thus, his obligation to support her post-majority was properly terminated.
Judicial Bias: The mother’s claims of bias were unsupported. Adverse rulings alone do not demonstrate bias, and the district court’s decisions were consistent with New Mexico law. The Court deferred to the district court’s role as fact-finder in resolving conflicting evidence and assessing witness credibility.
The Court concluded that the father demonstrated a substantial change in circumstances justifying the modification of his child support obligations and that the district court did not abuse its discretion in its rulings.