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 jurisdictional dispute over the enforcement and modification of child support provisions from a Texas judgment. The parties are parents of a child born in Texas in 1995. The Texas court established paternity, granted custody to the mother, awarded visitation rights to the father, and ordered him to pay child support. The mother later moved to New Mexico, and the father moved to California before returning to Texas. The father sought to enforce visitation rights in New Mexico, while the mother sought to modify and enforce the child support provisions (paras 2-5).
Procedural History
- Texas District Court, November 8, 1996: Entered a judgment establishing paternity, granting custody to the mother, awarding visitation rights to the father, and ordering child support (para 2).
- New Mexico District Court, 1999: Recognized and enforced the visitation provisions of the Texas judgment, modified visitation, and ordered mediation for a parenting plan. Dismissed the mother’s motion to modify and enforce child support provisions, citing lack of jurisdiction (paras 4-5).
Parties' Submissions
- Appellant (Mother): Argued that the New Mexico court had personal jurisdiction over the father because he initiated proceedings to enforce visitation. She also contended that the court had subject matter jurisdiction to modify and enforce the Texas child support order (paras 1, 7-8, 13).
- Appellee (Father): Asserted that New Mexico lacked both personal and subject matter jurisdiction over the child support provisions. He argued that Texas retained exclusive jurisdiction under the Uniform Interstate Family Support Act (UIFSA) and that his appearance in New Mexico was limited to enforcing visitation (paras 4-5, 8, 12).
Legal Issues
- Did the New Mexico court have personal jurisdiction over the father in the child support proceeding?
- Did the New Mexico court have subject matter jurisdiction to modify the Texas child support order?
- Did the New Mexico court have subject matter jurisdiction to enforce the Texas child support order?
Disposition
- The court held that New Mexico had personal jurisdiction over the father regarding the child support proceeding.
- The court held that New Mexico lacked subject matter jurisdiction to modify the Texas child support order.
- The court held that New Mexico had subject matter jurisdiction to enforce the Texas child support order (para 25).
Reasons
Per Sutin J. (Bustamante and Castillo JJ. concurring):
Personal Jurisdiction: The court found that the father submitted to New Mexico’s jurisdiction by filing a petition to enforce visitation provisions of the Texas judgment. Under the UIFSA, a party who seeks affirmative relief in a state court waives objections to personal jurisdiction. The court rejected the father’s argument for limited immunity under the UCCJEA, as New Mexico had not adopted that act (paras 9-12).
Subject Matter Jurisdiction to Modify: The court determined that Texas retained exclusive jurisdiction to modify the child support order under the UIFSA and the Full Faith and Credit for Child Support Orders Act (FFCCSOA). Texas was the issuing state, and the father continued to reside there. Additionally, the parties had not consented to transfer jurisdiction to New Mexico (paras 15-21).
Subject Matter Jurisdiction to Enforce: The court held that New Mexico had jurisdiction to enforce the Texas child support order because it was properly registered in New Mexico. The UIFSA and FFCCSOA require states to enforce valid child support orders from other jurisdictions, even if they lack authority to modify them (paras 22-24).
The court affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded the case for further proceedings consistent with its opinion (para 25).