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 an appellant's appeal against the denial of her request for a paternity test. The appellant claimed she was under duress when she signed the final decree establishing parentage and alleged that the mediator failed to file a request for a paternity test as promised. The appellant also contended she was unaware of the procedure for requesting a paternity test and did not make the request until over two years after the decree was filed.

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Appellant: Argued that she was under duress when signing the final decree of parentage and that the mediator was supposed to request a paternity test but did not. Claimed ignorance of the procedure for requesting a paternity test and challenged the timeliness of her request. Cited federal and state statutes on procedures for obtaining a paternity test for a child born outside of marriage.
• Appellee: [Not applicable or not found]

Legal Issues

• Whether the appellant's request for a paternity test was timely.
• Whether the appellant's claim of duress in signing the final decree of parentage is supported by the record.
• Whether the appellant's self-representation and claimed ignorance of legal procedures affect her case.
• Whether federal and state statutes cited by the appellant apply to her request for a paternity test.

Disposition

• The appeal against the denial of the request for a paternity test was affirmed.

Reasons

• The Court, consisting of Judges Michael D. Bustamante, Michael E. Vigil, and Timothy L. Garcia, unanimously affirmed the district court's decision. The Court found the appellant's arguments unpersuasive for several reasons:
  There was no evidence in the record to support the appellant's allegations of duress or the mediator's failure to request a paternity test (MIO 2).
  The appellant's request for a paternity test was not timely, as she waited over two years after the decree was filed to make the request. Pro se litigants are required to comply with the law and will not be treated differently than those with counsel (MIO 2).
  The appellant's citation of NMSA 1978, Section 37-1-29, regarding the limitation of actions for determining a parent and child relationship, was found not to apply to her case. The Court noted that there was already a determination of parent and child relationship by entry of a decree of parentage signed by both parents, and the appellant provided no authority showing that the statutory section applies to paternity tests in such cases (MIO 2).