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 former domestic partners regarding the parentage, custody, and time-sharing of a child adopted by the Respondent during their relationship. After the parties separated, the Respondent and the child moved to Colorado. The Petitioner sought to establish parentage and custody rights but was denied standing by the district court (paras 1-2).
Procedural History
- District Court, Santa Fe County, 2009: The district court dismissed the Petitioner’s petition to establish parentage and custody, citing a lack of standing. The court later granted a stay of its dismissal order but left visitation rights at the sole discretion of the Respondent (paras 2-3).
Parties' Submissions
- Appellant (Petitioner): Argued that the district court erred in its legal understanding of the scope of a stay and sought expedited review of the district court’s decision on the stay and visitation rights (paras 3-4).
- Appellee (Respondent): [Not applicable or not found]
Legal Issues
- Did the district court abuse its discretion in its consideration of the motion for a stay pending appeal?
- Should the district court have granted visitation rights to the Petitioner during the stay, despite its ruling on standing?
Disposition
- The Court of Appeals granted the Petitioner’s motion for expedited review and remanded the matter to the district court for further proceedings consistent with its opinion (para 4).
Reasons
Per Wechsler J. (Castillo and Garcia JJ. concurring):
The Court of Appeals found that the district court abused its discretion by misapprehending the law regarding the scope of a stay. The district court incorrectly believed that granting visitation rights during the stay would be inconsistent with its ruling on standing. The appellate court clarified that the imposition of a stay is a discretionary matter and must be evaluated based on the factors outlined in Alpers v. Alpers, including the potential harm to the child and the good faith of the appeal (paras 4-6).
The appellate court directed the district court to hold a hearing within 21 days to determine whether a guardian ad litem should be appointed. If a guardian ad litem is deemed unnecessary, the district court must promptly address the Petitioner’s motion for a stay, including the issue of visitation. If a guardian ad litem is appointed, the district court must establish a timetable for their work and proceed with a hearing thereafter (paras 6-7).