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 case involves a father's appeal against the district court's decisions on custody and visitation matters concerning his child. The father's appeal challenges the district court's jurisdiction under the Uniform Child-Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act (UCCJEA) and its original interlocutory order establishing temporary custody and visitation arrangements.

Procedural History

• District Court, October 2015: Issued an original interlocutory order establishing temporary custody and visitation arrangements.
• District Court, August 15, 2016: Denied Father’s Rule 1-060(B) NMRA motion.

Parties' Submissions

• Father: Argued that the district court erred in assuming jurisdiction under the UCCJEA and in its original interlocutory order. He requested consideration of all orders he is attempting to appeal due to the circumstances and the unusual nature of the case. He also suggested that he did not receive effective assistance of counsel.
• Appellee (Mother): [Not applicable or not found]

Legal Issues

• Whether the district court erred in assuming jurisdiction under the UCCJEA.
• Whether the original interlocutory order filed in October 2015 was a final, appealable order.
• Whether Father’s Rule 1-060(B) NMRA motion was moot and if exceptional circumstances existed to grant relief under Rule 1-060(B)(6).

Disposition

• The appeal concerning orders filed prior to August 2016 was dismissed due to the untimely filing of the notice of appeal.
• The district court’s denial of relief under Rule 1-060(B)(6) was affirmed.
• The appeal with respect to the district court’s other orders was dismissed.

Reasons

• The Court of Appeals, with Judge Jonathan B. Sutin authoring the opinion, and concurrence from Chief Judge Linda M. Vanzi and Judge Henry M. Bohnhoff, held that the father's notice of appeal was not timely filed, which is a mandatory precondition for the exercise of the court's jurisdiction over an appeal. The court emphasized that the existence of significant legal or factual issues does not excuse a late-filed notice of appeal. Regarding the Rule 1-060(B) motion, the court noted that since the temporary custody and visitation order had been superseded by later orders, the motion was moot. Furthermore, the court stated that Rule 1-060(B)(6) authorizes relief only in exceptional circumstances, which the father failed to demonstrate. The court also addressed the father's suggestion of ineffective assistance of counsel, clarifying that in a civil case, neither party has a right to counsel, and thus the lack of effective assistance is not a basis for relief from a civil judgment (paras 1-7).