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

• Petitioner and Respondent were in a romantic relationship and cohabitated from July 2019 until September 2021, during which time Respondent gave birth to Child in July 2019. After their breakup, Petitioner filed a petition to establish parentage, determine custody, and assess child support, claiming she had lived with and openly held out Child as her own for the first two years of Child's life. Respondent opposed the petition, arguing that Petitioner should not be adjudicated a parent, citing a lack of financial contribution, commitment, and safety concerns due to Petitioner's behavior post-breakup (paras 2-3).

Procedural History

• District Court of Bernalillo County: Dismissed Petitioner's petition, adjudicated Petitioner was not a parent of Child, and ruled Respondent as Child's only legal parent.

Parties' Submissions

• Petitioner: Argued that parentage should be determined under the New Mexico Uniform Parentage Act (NMUPA), claiming presumptive parentage under the holding out presumption, which requires showing that for the first two years of the child’s life, the presumed parent resided in the same household with the child and openly held out the child as their own (para 1).
• Respondent: Contended that Petitioner should not be adjudicated a parent of Child, arguing that there was no intention for Petitioner to parent Child, Petitioner did not contribute financially, their relationship was not committed, and Respondent did not feel safe due to Petitioner’s behavior after their breakup (para 2).

Legal Issues

• Whether the district court erred in concluding that the NMUPA did not apply to the case.
• Whether Petitioner successfully established presumptive parentage of Child under the NMUPA's holding out presumption.
• Whether Respondent presented evidence sufficient to rebut Petitioner’s presumption of parentage.

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals reversed the district court's decision and remanded for further proceedings consistent with the opinion, directing the district court to weigh the evidence under the NMUPA (para 15).

Reasons

• The Court of Appeals, with Judges Katherine A. Wray, Zachary A. Ives, and Shammara H. Henderson concurring, found that the district court erred in its application of the NMUPA and in its determination that Petitioner could not be considered a parent under the holding out presumption. The appellate court highlighted the district court's erroneous finding regarding the child's age and concluded that the NMUPA does indeed govern the determination of parentage in this case. The appellate court emphasized the need for the district court to apply the NMUPA correctly, including assessing whether the statutory presumption of parentage has been established and whether it has been rebutted. The appellate court also addressed standing and the constitutional arguments raised by Respondent, concluding that Petitioner had standing to seek an adjudication of parentage and that the district court must consider the best interests of the child, including potentially appointing a guardian ad litem (paras 4-14).