AI Generated Opinion Summaries

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 two parents following their divorce. The parties had agreed to a marital settlement agreement (MSA) and a parenting plan, which included provisions for the religious upbringing of their children in accordance with Sikh customs. The mother alleged that the father violated these provisions, which she claimed constituted a major change affecting the children's best interests. The father denied these allegations, arguing that the provisions were no longer in the children's best interests and raised constitutional concerns under the First Amendment (paras 3-9).

Procedural History

• District Court, January 12, 1993: A final decree was entered incorporating the MSA and parenting plan (para 5).
• District Court, October 1994: An interim order was issued concerning the placement of the children, appointing a case manager and requiring psychotherapy (para 10).

Parties' Submissions

• Appellant (Father): Argued that the religious lifestyle provisions were unenforceable under the First Amendment and no longer in the children's best interests. He also contended that he was not required to consult the mother on major decisions if it would harm the children's best interests. Additionally, he sought to shorten the mother's summer visitation and argued against paying child support (paras 8-9).
• Appellee (Mother): Alleged that the father systematically violated the religious lifestyle provisions and had no intention of abiding by them when signing the agreement. She sought to modify custody, impose sanctions, and recover attorney fees. She also raised tort claims, including fraud and intentional infliction of emotional distress, and requested reconsideration of alimony and property division (paras 6-8).

Legal Issues

• Whether the trial court's decision constituted a final and appealable order.
• Whether the lack of decretal language in the trial court's decision rendered it non-final.
• Whether unresolved issues in the case precluded appellate review.
• Whether the trial court's decision could be certified under Rule 1-054(C)(1) NMRA 1998 (paras 1-2, 12-21).

Disposition

• The appeal was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction as the trial court's decision was not final or appealable (para 27).

Reasons

Per Armijo J. (Donnelly and Bustamante JJ. concurring):

• The court held that the trial court's decision lacked decretal language, which is necessary to carry the decision into effect and make it final for purposes of appeal. Findings of fact and conclusions of law without decretal language are not appealable (paras 12-15).
• The decision did not resolve all issues raised by the pleadings, including custody, child support, and tort claims. A final order must resolve all issues or be certified under Rule 1-054(C)(1) (paras 17-20).
• The trial court did not certify the decision under Rule 1-054(C)(1), which requires an express determination that there is no just reason for delay and an express direction for entry of judgment. Even if certified, appellate review would be premature as the resolved issues were intertwined with unresolved matters (paras 18-25).
• The court suggested that the trial court consider appointing a special master or reassessing the roles of the case manager and Rule 11-706 expert to expedite resolution upon remand (para 26).