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 Taylor Gill (Mother) and Ezekiel Padilla (Father) over the custody of their child. The district court granted Father sole legal and physical custody of the child. Mother had previously requested sole legal custody in her motion for relocation, which the district court denied without addressing legal custody. Subsequent motions by Mother and responses by Father did not request termination of joint custody. The appeal challenges the district court's decision to terminate joint custody and award sole custody to Father without the required advance notice.

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Mother: Argued that the district court abused its discretion by terminating joint custody without the required notice and contrary to law.
• Father: Contended that Mother's arguments should not be considered on appeal because she did not preserve them by objecting to the lack of notice in the district court.

Legal Issues

• Whether the district court abused its discretion by terminating joint custody without the required advance notice to the parties.

Disposition

• The order granting Father sole legal and physical custody of the child was reversed, and the case was remanded for further proceedings consistent with the appellate court's opinion.

Reasons

• IVES, Judge: The court found that the district court erred in awarding Father sole custody without the requisite notice to Mother that continuation of joint custody would be at issue, violating New Mexico precedent which requires specific notice for hearings where joint custody termination is considered (paras 1-3). The appellate court exercised its discretion to review Mother's claim of error despite the lack of preservation, citing the fundamental right of a parent to make decisions concerning the care, custody, and control of their child and the purpose of advance notice to protect that right (para 2). The appellate court did not address other arguments due to the decision to reverse based on the notice issue but noted that should sole custody be sought on remand, the district court must not terminate joint custody unless there has been a substantial and material change in circumstances affecting the child's welfare (para 4).
  Concurring: JACQUELINE R. MEDINA, Judge; SHAMMARA H. HENDERSON, Judge.