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 the parents of a minor child regarding child support, custody, and schooling. The father sought a change in primary physical custody of the child, while the mother contested the trial court's rulings on child support arrearages, custody, and the child's schooling arrangements. The child expressed a preference to live with the father, who had moved closer to the child's residence, and the court clinic recommended the custody change as being in the child's best interests (paras 1, 8).
Procedural History
- District Court of Bernalillo County: The trial court confirmed a special master's report on child support arrearages, changed primary physical custody of the child from the mother to the father, and permitted the child to attend public high school under certain conditions (paras 1, 6-10).
Parties' Submissions
- Appellant (Mother): Argued that the trial court erred in confirming the special master's report, changing custody, and allowing the child to attend public high school. She also raised procedural issues, including insufficient notice for hearings, lack of opportunity to file findings and conclusions, and the absence of a record of the court's interview with the child (paras 2-3, 12-15).
- Respondent (Father): Defended the trial court's rulings, asserting compliance with procedural rules and that the custody change and schooling decisions were in the child's best interests. He also argued that the mother's procedural objections were either untimely or lacked merit (paras 2-3, 6-10).
Legal Issues
- Should the father's brief be struck for procedural deficiencies?
- Did the trial court err in confirming the special master's report on child support arrearages and related financial matters?
- Was the trial court correct in changing primary physical custody of the child to the father?
- Did the trial court err in permitting the child to attend public high school under certain conditions?
- Were the procedural issues raised by the mother sufficient to warrant a reversal of the trial court's decisions?
Disposition
- The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's decisions on all issues (para 18).
Reasons
Per Chavez J. (Apodaca and Hartz JJ. concurring):
Motion to Strike: The court declined to strike the father's brief, finding that it complied with appellate rules and did not rely on matters outside the record. The court emphasized its policy of deciding cases on their merits, particularly in matters involving children (paras 2-3).
Special Master's Report: The court upheld the trial court's adoption of the special master's report, noting that the mother failed to demonstrate a substantial change in circumstances to justify an increase in child support. The court also found no error in offsetting the mother's debt against child support payments or in the trial court's rulings on arrearages (paras 6-7).
Custody Change: The court found that the trial court acted within its discretion in changing custody, citing the child's expressed preference, the father's relocation closer to the child, and the court clinic's recommendation. The trial court's detailed findings supported the conclusion that the custody change was in the child's best interests (paras 8-9).
Schooling Decision: The court upheld the trial court's decision to allow the child to attend public high school, finding that the child would graduate on time with extra classes and that the decision was reasonable under the circumstances (para 10).
Procedural Issues: The court rejected the mother's procedural objections, noting that many were not raised at the trial level or lacked sufficient specificity. The court also found that any procedural errors did not prejudice the mother or affect the trial court's decisions (paras 12-17).
The court concluded that the trial court's decisions were supported by substantial evidence and were within its discretion, particularly in matters concerning the child's best interests (para 17).