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 mother seeking retroactive child support and reimbursement for pregnancy and birthing expenses from the father of her child, born out of wedlock in 1984. The father admitted paternity but had not been legally adjudicated as the father or ordered to pay child support. The mother relied on the Child Support Enforcement Division (CSED) to pursue support but eventually filed her own action after CSED discontinued its efforts (paras 2-4).
Procedural History
- District Court, Socorro County: Held that the mother waived retroactive child support and lacked standing to seek reimbursement for pregnancy and birthing expenses. The court also awarded only $600 in attorney's fees against unpaid fees of $1,890 (paras 1, 4).
Parties' Submissions
- Appellant (Mother): Argued that she did not waive retroactive child support and that the trial court erred in concluding she lacked standing to seek reimbursement for pregnancy and birthing expenses. She also contended that the attorney's fees awarded were insufficient (paras 4, 11, 21, 27).
- Appellee (Father): Claimed that the mother waived retroactive child support by not requesting it earlier and argued that his informal support, including gifts and medical insurance, satisfied his obligations. He also contended that the mother lacked standing to claim reimbursement for expenses paid by her parents (paras 4, 11, 19, 21).
Legal Issues
- Did the mother waive her right to retroactive child support under the Uniform Parentage Act (UPA)?
- Does the mother have standing to seek reimbursement for pregnancy and birthing expenses paid by her parents?
- Did the trial court err in awarding only $600 in attorney's fees?
Disposition
- The Court of Appeals reversed the trial court's findings that the mother waived retroactive child support and lacked standing to seek reimbursement for pregnancy and birthing expenses.
- The case was remanded for recalculation of retroactive child support, reconsideration of pregnancy and birthing costs, and a fair award of attorney's fees (paras 29-30).
Reasons
Per Bosson J. (Pickard CJ. and Donnelly J. concurring):
Waiver of Retroactive Child Support: The court found no evidence that the mother intentionally waived her right to retroactive child support. Waiver requires a known legal right, relinquished for consideration, and without infringing on the rights of others. The father failed to prove these elements, and the mother's reliance on CSED to pursue support did not constitute waiver (paras 11-18).
Standing for Reimbursement of Expenses: The court held that the mother had standing to seek reimbursement for pregnancy and birthing expenses, as she incurred responsibility for these costs, even if her parents paid them. The trial court's conclusion conflated standing with the real party in interest. The UPA allows any interested party to bring such claims, and the grandparents could also be joined in the action (paras 21-26).
Attorney's Fees: The trial court abused its discretion by awarding only $600 in attorney's fees. Considering the economic disparity between the parties, the complexity of the case, and the mother's success on appeal, the court remanded for a fairer award. Additionally, the mother was granted $1,500 in attorney's fees for the appeal (paras 27-30).