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 dispute between the Petitioner and the Respondent over the Petitioner's request to relocate their child to Nebraska. The Respondent, a self-represented litigant, opposed the relocation. The district court granted the Petitioner's request, leading to the Respondent's appeal.

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Petitioner-Appellee: Requested the court to grant permission to relocate the child to Nebraska.
• Respondent-Appellant: Opposed the relocation request, arguing lack of awareness of Rule 1-054.1 NMRA as a legitimate reason for not raising an issue, claimed the judge hindered his ability to preserve the issue, challenged the judge’s denial of his motion to recuse based on alleged bias, argued the district court erred by not issuing findings of fact and conclusions of law, and contended that the relocation was not in the child's best interest.

Legal Issues

• Whether the district court erred in granting the Petitioner’s request to relocate the child to Nebraska.
• Whether the Respondent's lack of awareness of Rule 1-054.1 NMRA constitutes a legitimate reason for not raising the issue in district court.
• Whether the district court judge's actions hindered the Respondent's ability to preserve issues for appeal.
• Whether the district court judge should have recused himself due to alleged bias.
• Whether the district court erred by not issuing written findings of fact and conclusions of law.
• Whether the district court properly considered the child's best interests in granting the relocation request.
• Whether the district court's decision violates the Respondent's constitutionally protected parental rights.

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court’s order granting the Petitioner’s request to relocate the child to Nebraska.

Reasons

• The Court of Appeals, comprising Judges Zachary A. Ives, J. Miles Hanisee, and Shammara H. Henderson, found the Respondent's arguments unpersuasive. The court concluded that the Respondent's lack of awareness of Rule 1-054.1 NMRA and his claims of judicial hindrance did not justify a review of unpreserved issues (para 2). The court also found no reasonable factual basis for doubting the judge’s impartiality, thus rejecting the Respondent's motion for recusal (paras 3-4). The court held that the district court's oral explanation of its rationale was sufficient and that the Respondent failed to demonstrate that the district court overlooked relevant facts or evidence in its decision-making process (paras 5-6). The court further concluded that the district court properly considered the child's best interests and that the Respondent failed to demonstrate an abuse of discretion in the decision to allow relocation (paras 7-10). Lastly, the court addressed the Respondent's assertion regarding his constitutionally protected parental rights and found it to be without merit, emphasizing that the child's best interests are paramount (para 11).