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 custody dispute between divorced parents over their two minor sons, aged eight and ten. The mother had primary physical custody, while the father had visitation rights. Following the mother’s relocation to Maryland, disputes arose over visitation, child support, and the father’s alleged alcohol issues. The father sought a change in custody after the mother failed to send the children for a scheduled visit, citing the father’s non-compliance with court-ordered alcohol treatment (paras 2-6).
Procedural History
- District Court, 1985: The parties were divorced, and the mother was granted primary physical custody of the children, with the father receiving visitation rights (para 2).
- District Court, 1986: The visitation provisions were modified to accommodate the mother’s move to Maryland. The father was held in contempt for failing to make timely child support payments (para 3).
- District Court, 1987: The mother filed motions to enforce child support payments, which were resolved in her favor (para 3).
- District Court, 1988: The court imposed restrictions on the father’s visitation due to concerns about his alcohol use, requiring him to enroll in an Antabuse program (para 5).
- District Court, July 5, 1989: The court ordered a change of custody to the father, which the mother appealed (paras 8, 18).
Parties' Submissions
- Mother (Appellant): Argued that the trial court lacked jurisdiction under the New Mexico Child Custody Jurisdiction Act (NMCCJA) and that the change of custody was not supported by evidence of a material change in circumstances or the best interests of the children (paras 1, 9, 19-20).
- Father (Appellee): Contended that the trial court had jurisdiction and that the mother’s repeated violations of visitation orders justified the change of custody. He also argued that the court could change custody to enforce compliance with visitation orders (paras 8, 22-23).
Legal Issues
- Did the trial court have jurisdiction under the NMCCJA to modify the custody order?
- Was there sufficient evidence of a material change in circumstances to justify the change of custody?
- Was the change of custody in the best interests of the children?
Disposition
- The trial court’s order changing custody to the father was reversed (para 28).
Reasons
Per Donnelly J. (Bivins C.J. and Apodaca J. concurring):
Jurisdiction: The court held that the trial court had jurisdiction under the NMCCJA. The children and the parents had significant connections to New Mexico, and substantial evidence regarding the children’s care and relationships was available in the state. The 1989 amendments to the NMCCJA, granting continuing jurisdiction to New Mexico, were applied retroactively (paras 9-16).
Change of Custody: The court found that the trial court erred in determining that a material change in circumstances justified the custody change. The father’s motion was based on a single missed visit, and there was no evidence that the mother’s actions were willful or intentional. Additionally, the trial court failed to make findings that the custody change was in the best interests of the children, as required by law (paras 19-25).
Best Interests of the Children: The court emphasized that custody modifications require a showing of substantial changes affecting the children’s welfare and that the best interests of the children must be the primary consideration. The trial court’s findings did not address these factors adequately (paras 20, 24-25).
Attorney Fees: The court declined to award attorney fees to the mother, as no finding of need was made by the trial court (para 26).