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 maternal grandmother sought visitation rights with her grandson under the Grandparent Visitation Privileges Act. The child, born in March 1996, lived with his mother in the grandmother's home from birth until September 1998. A domestic disturbance led the mother to leave the home without the child, but the timeline of the child’s return to the mother was disputed. The grandmother claimed standing under the Act based on the child residing with her for over three months before the age of six (paras 2, 5-6).
Procedural History
- District Court, Sandoval County: The court ruled that the grandmother lacked standing under the Grandparent Visitation Privileges Act to seek visitation rights and dismissed her petition (paras 1, 6).
Parties' Submissions
- Appellant (Grandmother): Argued that the child resided with her for more than three months before the age of six, meeting the standing requirement under the Act. She contended that the district court improperly considered factors outside the statutory requirements for standing, such as caregiving roles and the best interests of the child, which should only be assessed after standing is established (paras 8, 12-13).
- Appellee (Mother): Asserted that the grandmother lacked standing due to the coercive circumstances under which the mother and child lived with the grandmother. She argued that the Act’s purpose is to protect existing relationships, not to create new ones, and that the grandmother’s petition was an attempt to establish a relationship after years of no contact. The mother also emphasized the lack of a current relationship between the grandmother and the child (paras 9-11).
Legal Issues
- Did the grandmother meet the standing requirements under the Grandparent Visitation Privileges Act by demonstrating that the child resided with her for at least three months before the age of six? (paras 3, 7, 12-13).
Disposition
- The Court of Appeals reversed the district court’s decision and remanded the case for further proceedings (para 17).
Reasons
Per Sutin J. (Vigil and Garcia JJ. concurring):
The Court of Appeals held that the district court erred in denying the grandmother standing under the Act. The court emphasized that the standing requirement under Section 40-9-2(C) is limited to whether the child resided with the grandparent for at least three months before the age of six. The district court improperly considered factors such as caregiving roles, coercion, and the best interests of the child, which are only relevant under Section 40-9-2(G) after standing is established (paras 12-13).
The court rejected the mother’s argument that equitable considerations, such as coercion or duress, could override the statutory standing requirements. It found no evidence that the mother was forced to remain in the grandmother’s home for the two-year period. The court also clarified that caregiving roles are not relevant to the standing analysis under Section 40-9-2(C) (paras 14-16).
The Court of Appeals concluded that the grandmother met the statutory requirements for standing and remanded the case for further proceedings to assess the merits of the visitation petition under Section 40-9-2(G) (paras 17-18).