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

• Maile Soon and Jeannine Kammann, married in September 2015, engaged in a dispute over Kammann’s parentage of twins conceived via artificial insemination during their marriage. Soon moved out in November 2016 while pregnant and filed for divorce in January 2017. Initially, both agreed on Kammann’s parentage and enacted a child support and visitation plan. However, Soon later challenged Kammann’s standing to adjudicate parentage under the New Mexico Uniform Parentage Act (NMUPA), arguing Kammann was not biologically related to the children and had not consented to the insemination procedure (paras 3-5).

Procedural History

• District Court, September 2018: Adjudicated Kammann not to be a parent of the children.
• District Court, December 4, 2018: Denied Kammann's motion for visitation rights based on a theory of stepparent visitation and granted a dissolution of marriage (para 2).

Parties' Submissions

• Petitioner-Appellee (Soon): Argued that Kammann lacked standing to adjudicate parentage under the NMUPA due to no genetic relation to the children and contested Kammann’s consent to the insemination procedure (para 5).
• Respondent-Appellant (Kammann): Contended that her marriage to Soon and consent to assisted reproduction established her as a parent under New Mexico law, challenging the district court’s interpretation of the NMUPA (para 6).

Legal Issues

• Whether undisputed evidence of no genetic relationship with the children is sufficient to rebut the statutory presumption of parentage for children born during the marriage (para 2).
• Whether statutory requirements to establish parentage by consent to assisted reproduction limit evidence to only those records signed for the specific procedure resulting in pregnancy (para 2).

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals reversed the district court’s decision, finding that Kammann’s lack of a genetic relationship and the absence of a signed record for the specific insemination procedure that resulted in conception were not sufficient grounds to deny her parentage under the NMUPA (para 2).

Reasons

• The Court of Appeals, per Duffy, J., with Hanisee, C.J., and Baca, J., concurring, held that the NMUPA’s provisions allow for a broader interpretation of parentage that includes non-biological parents who consent to assisted reproduction. The court emphasized the importance of intent to parent over biological connection and found procedural errors in the district court’s handling of the case. The appellate court underscored the NMUPA’s purpose to ensure children are supported by two parents and highlighted the legislative intent to accommodate diverse family structures, including those formed through assisted reproduction. The court concluded that a strict interpretation of the NMUPA’s evidentiary requirements for rebutting a presumption of parentage and for establishing consent to assisted reproduction was necessary to protect the rights of all parties involved and to serve the best interests of the children (paras 8-31).