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 concerns a dispute over retroactive child support. The parties were married in 1982, divorced in 1991, and the child was conceived shortly before the divorce was finalized. In 1991, the father stipulated to paternity in a California court, which reserved the issue of child support. The father left for Iran before the child’s birth and was unreachable for years. In 2006, the mother located the father and sought retroactive child support for arrears dating back to 1994 (paras 2-3).
Procedural History
- California Court, October 29, 1991: The father stipulated to paternity, and the court reserved the issue of child support (para 2).
- District Court of Sandoval County, October 24, 2006: The mother filed a petition to modify the 1991 stipulation, seeking retroactive child support (para 3).
- District Court of Sandoval County, March 24, 2008: The court ordered the father to pay $75,000 in retroactive child support for arrears from 1994 to 2006 (para 3).
Parties' Submissions
- Appellant (Father): Argued that the district court erred in applying New Mexico’s Uniform Parentage Act (UPA) because paternity had already been established in California, and retroactive child support was not permissible under New Mexico law (paras 4-5, 7).
- Appellee (Mother): Contended that retroactive child support was appropriate under the UPA because the California court had reserved the issue of child support, and the father had defrauded her into believing he was dead (paras 3, 6).
Legal Issues
- Did the district court err in applying New Mexico’s Uniform Parentage Act (UPA) to a case where paternity had already been established in another state?
- Was the award of retroactive child support permissible under New Mexico law?
Disposition
- The Court of Appeals reversed the district court’s award of $75,000 in retroactive child support (para 8).
Reasons
Per Vigil J. (Wechsler and Kennedy JJ. concurring):
The Court found that the district court erred in applying New Mexico’s UPA because paternity had already been established in California in 1991. The UPA only applies to cases where parentage has not been previously determined, and the California stipulation was a final order entitled to full faith and credit (paras 5-6).
The Court also held that under New Mexico law, retroactive child support can only be awarded from the date of the filing of the petition for modification, not for periods preceding it. The district court’s award of retroactive child support dating back to 1994 was therefore improper (para 7).
The Court emphasized that while New Mexico has a strong public policy in favor of child support, the mother’s interpretation of the UPA would impermissibly broaden its application (para 6).