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 the petitioner-appellant, Eric Christopher Achen (Father), appealing against two district court orders related to the custody and relocation of his daughter. The first order, issued on August 6, 2009, found the mother's reasons for relocation financially legitimate. The second order, issued on June 4, 2013, denied Father's motion to restore his and his daughter's inherent, natural, inalienable, and equal rights as protected by the United States Constitution and the New Mexico Constitution.

Procedural History

• Minute order filed on August 6, 2009: Found Mother's reasons for relocation financially legitimate.
• Minute order filed on June 4, 2013: Denied Father's motion to restore inherent, natural, inalienable, and equal rights of daughter and Father.

Parties' Submissions

• Father: Objected to the court's proposed summary affirmance, arguing it violated constitutionally protected rights for his daughter to have equal access to both parents. He also highlighted financial hardships faced since 2009 in traveling to see his daughter.
• Mother: [Not applicable or not found]

Legal Issues

• Whether the Father abandoned his appeal of the August 6, 2009, minute order by failing to perfect his appeal.
• Whether there was a substantial change in circumstances that would merit granting Father’s motion for modification of the permanent custody order to allow his daughter equal access to both parents.

Disposition

• The appeal regarding the August 6, 2009, minute order was deemed abandoned.
• The district court's denial of Father's 2013 motion to restore rights and modify the permanent custody order was affirmed.

Reasons

• The Court, led by Chief Judge Roderick T. Kennedy and concurred by Judges Cynthia A. Fry and Jonathan B. Sutin, held that Father abandoned his appeal of the 2009 minute order by failing to file a docketing statement, thus incorporating the order by implication into the subsequent permanent custody order. The Court also found that Father did not meet his burden to show a substantial change in circumstances that would warrant a modification of the custody arrangement. Despite Father's financial hardships, the Court was not convinced that these constituted a substantial change in circumstances. Additionally, the Court remained unpersuaded by Father's constitutional challenges to the "best interests of the child" standard.