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 deceased, who was married for 36 years and had two children with his wife, also fathered two children, Jonathan and Sarah, with another woman during his marriage. After his death, the mother of these children sought to establish paternity and claim past and future child support from his estate under the Uniform Parentage Act (UPA). Paternity was confirmed through testing, but the district court ruled against the child support claim, stating no action had been filed before the father’s death (paras 2-6).

Procedural History

• District Court of Sandoval County: Ruled that the children could not claim child support from the estate as no action had been filed before the father’s death. The court dismissed the petition with prejudice (paras 5-6).

Parties' Submissions

• Plaintiff-Appellant (Mother of the children): Argued that the UPA allows children born outside of marriage to claim child support from their father’s estate, even if no action was filed before the father’s death. She also sought discovery of the deceased’s assets (paras 3-4, 8).
• Defendant-Appellee (Personal Representative of the Estate): Contended that child support claims were invalid without a prior court order before the father’s death, that the claim was barred by laches and waiver, and that community property passed directly to the wife, leaving no assets for child support (paras 5-6).

Legal Issues

• Does the UPA allow children born outside of marriage to claim child support from their father’s estate if no action was filed before the father’s death?
• Can the claim for child support be satisfied from the deceased’s community property or separate property?
• Are the claims barred by laches or waiver?

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals reversed the district court’s dismissal of the child support claims and remanded the case for further proceedings (para 19).

Reasons

Per Bosson CJ (Pickard and Robinson JJ. concurring):

• The UPA explicitly allows actions for paternity and child support to be brought against a deceased father’s estate, and there is no statutory requirement that such actions must be initiated before the father’s death (paras 8-13).
• The legislative intent of the UPA is to ensure children born outside of marriage are treated equally to those born within marriage, particularly regarding their right to support (paras 10, 15).
• The argument that the claim is barred by laches or waiver was not addressed by the district court but may be considered on remand. However, New Mexico law disfavors these defenses in child support cases (para 17).
• The issue of whether the claim can be satisfied from community or separate property was not decided by the district court and is left for determination on remand (para 18).
• Practical concerns about evidentiary challenges due to the father’s death do not override the statutory and public policy considerations favoring child support claims (para 16).