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 a mother and a father over timesharing and child support following their divorce. The marital settlement agreement provided for guideline child support and directed that the existing parenting plan would control until further ordered by the court. Disagreements arose regarding compliance with the timesharing plan, leading to various motions and court orders to modify timesharing and child support, including the appointment of a parenting coordinator and a Rule 11-706 NMRA evaluation to recommend a permanent timesharing plan.

Procedural History

• July 15, 2005: Final decree of dissolution of marriage filed, adopting the marital settlement agreement.
• July 19, 2006: District Court (Judge Sweazea) ordered a change to timesharing and a Rule 11-706 NMRA evaluation.
• January 12, 2007: District Court (Judge Robinson) appointed Dr. Zieman as a parenting coordinator.
• April 16, 2008: District Court appointed Dr. Miller as its Rule 11-706 expert to perform an evaluation and make recommendations concerning legal custody and appropriate timesharing arrangements.
• May 15, 2009: District Court entered an order sua sponte adopting Dr. Miller’s recommendations as the order of the court.

Parties' Submissions

• Mother: Contended that the district court erred by changing timesharing without a hearing, testimony, or findings regarding the best interests of the children or a change in circumstances. Argued that the award of child support arrears and attorney fees to Father was improper and not supported by substantial evidence.
• Father: Argued for the modification of child support consistent with the New Mexico Child Support Guidelines and the current income of the parties. Contended that the existing child support order should be modified due to a material change in circumstances, including equal timesharing recommended by Dr. Miller.

Legal Issues

• Whether the district court committed reversible error by entering a sua sponte pre-trial order changing timesharing of the children.
• Whether the district court erred in granting a judgment to Father for child support arrears in the amount of $13,491.
• Whether the district court erred in awarding Father $10,000 for attorney fees.

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court’s final order modifying timesharing and child support, awarding Father a judgment for child support arrears, and awarding Father attorney fees.

Reasons

• The Court of Appeals, per Judge Michael E. Vigil, with Judges Jonathan B. Sutin and Roderick T. Kennedy concurring, found no basis to support Mother’s contention that the May 15, 2009 sua sponte order inappropriately made major, permanent modifications to the parties’ timesharing arrangements without a hearing, testimony, evidence, or findings. The court determined that the district court did not abuse its discretion in entering the May 15, 2009 order, as it addressed matters pending a review hearing and Mother was given a full and fair opportunity to present her evidence and arguments against 50/50 timesharing. Regarding child support, the court concluded that the district court did not abuse its discretion in calculating the overpayments Father made since December 2006 and establishing new child support amounts based on the parties’ then-current gross incomes and child care-related expenses. The court also held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in awarding $10,000 to Father in attorney fees, considering Mother’s engagement in unnecessary litigation and failure to accept the district court’s rulings.