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

• Two women, Soon and Kammann, shared a desire to have children together. They began assisted reproduction treatments before marrying, and Soon conceived through intrauterine insemination ten months into their marriage. The relationship deteriorated, and Soon filed for divorce while pregnant but remained married to Kammann when she gave birth to twins. Kammann was involved in prenatal care, visited the twins post-birth, discussed their names, and paid child support. A custody dispute ensued, with Soon challenging Kammann's parentage claim due to a lack of genetic connection to the twins (paras 3-5).

Procedural History

• Soon v. Kammann, 2022-NMCA-066, 521 P.3d 110: The Court of Appeals reversed the district court's conclusion that Kammann's admission of not being a genetic parent rebutted the presumption of marriage, thus establishing her standing as a presumed parent under the UPA (para 8).

Parties' Submissions

• Petitioner (Soon): Argued that Kammann lacked standing under the UPA because she is not genetically related to the twins, thus rebutting the marriage-based presumption of parentage (para 5).
• Respondent (Kammann): Contended that the twins' birth during the marriage establishes her standing as a presumed parent under the UPA and case law, regardless of genetic connection (para 6).

Legal Issues

• Whether a person’s admission to not being a genetic parent of a child is sufficient to rebut a presumption of parentage under the New Mexico Uniform Parentage Act (UPA) (para 1).
• Whether the district court must follow the procedures in the UPA, which establish specific admissibility requirements for the results of genetic testing, including considering the best interest of the child before ordering such testing (para 1).

Disposition

• The Supreme Court of the State of New Mexico held that Kammann’s marriage presumption of parentage is unrebutted as established in the UPA, and no genetic test results were admitted pursuant to the required procedures established in the UPA. Accordingly, Kammann is a parent of the twin children (para 28).

Reasons

• VIGIL, Justice, with DAVID K. THOMSON, Chief Justice, C. SHANNON BACON, Justice, NANCY J. FRANCHINI, Judge, and CINDY. M. MERCER, Judge, concurring: The Court emphasized that the best interest of the child is the paramount concern in custody adjudications in New Mexico, not genetics, gender, or family composition. It was determined that an individual's admission of not being a genetic parent does not suffice to rebut the presumption of parentage under the UPA. The Court highlighted that the UPA requires specific procedures for the admissibility of genetic testing results, including considering the child's best interest. The Court also noted that the presumption of parentage can lead to an adjudication of parenthood even if there is no genetic connection, underscoring the importance of the child's best interest over genetic relationships. The decision was driven by the overarching policy goals of the UPA to ensure that a child is cared for by two parents and to address the child's interest in support, rejecting constraints imposed by biology, gender, and family structure (paras 10-27).