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 father who sought to modify his child support obligations due to his incarceration. The father, who had been ordered to pay $400 per month in child support, argued that his income had drastically decreased while in federal prison. The child was born in 1983, and the father had previously shared joint custody with the mother until a 1990 order granted sole custody to the mother and suspended the father’s visitation rights following an incident of discipline reported to authorities. The father became a fugitive in 1989 due to narcotics-related charges and was later apprehended in 1991 (paras 2-3).
Procedural History
- District Court, February 26, 1990: Ordered the father to pay $400 per month in child support and reserved jurisdiction to modify the award retroactively due to the father’s fugitive status (para 2).
- District Court, December 21, 1992: Denied the father’s motion to retroactively modify child support to $50 per month, finding no material or substantial changes in circumstances to warrant modification (paras 3-5).
Parties' Submissions
- Appellant (Father): Argued that his incarceration drastically reduced his income to $15 per month, making the $400 monthly child support obligation unfeasible. He also claimed that the district court’s decision violated equal protection, discriminated against incarcerated individuals, and subjected him to potential contempt of court upon release. Additionally, he alleged ineffective assistance of counsel for failing to present evidence regarding his inheritance and financial status (paras 4, 15-16).
- Respondent (Mother): [Not applicable or not found]
Legal Issues
- Whether the father’s incarceration constitutes a material and substantial change in circumstances warranting modification of child support.
- Whether the district court’s decision violated the father’s equal protection rights.
- Whether the father received ineffective assistance of counsel.
Disposition
- The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court’s decision, denying the father’s motion to modify child support (para 17).
Reasons
Per Flores J. (Donnelly and Bustamante JJ. concurring):
The court held that the father failed to meet his burden of proving a material and substantial change in circumstances to justify modifying the child support order. The father’s incarceration, while a factor to consider, did not automatically demonstrate an inability to pay support. The court noted that the father had assets, including an inheritance and other property, which could potentially be used to meet his obligations. The district court was entitled to disbelieve the father’s testimony regarding the inheritance and found no evidence of indigence (paras 6-7, 10, 14).
The court also emphasized that public policy in New Mexico prioritizes the support of minor children and does not favor relieving incarcerated parents of their obligations when they voluntarily engage in criminal conduct. The father’s arguments regarding equal protection and ineffective assistance of counsel were dismissed as unpersuasive and not properly preserved for appeal. The court concluded that the father’s incarceration and financial circumstances did not warrant modification of the child support order (paras 9-16).