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 concerns a dispute over child custody and visitation rights between the parents of minor children. The mother moved out of state with the children, which the father argued violated their joint custody agreement and New Mexico law requiring consultation on major decisions affecting the children. The mother, however, relied on a modified joint custody order granting her ultimate decision-making authority on significant matters concerning the children.

Procedural History

• District Court, August 26, 2003: Issued a modified joint custody order granting the mother ultimate decision-making authority on significant matters concerning the children.
• District Court, (N/A): Adopted a hearing officer’s report on child visitation over the father’s objections.

Parties' Submissions

• Appellant (Father): Argued that the mother violated the joint custody agreement and New Mexico law by moving out of state without his permission or a court order. He contended that the move was not in the children’s best interest and that the district court erred in adopting the hearing officer’s report without holding a hearing on his objections.
• Appellee (Mother): Asserted that the modified joint custody order granted her the authority to make significant decisions, including relocating with the children, as long as she provided the required notice to the father. She argued that she complied with the notice requirements and attempted to resolve timesharing issues before relocating.

Legal Issues

• Did the district court err in adopting the hearing officer’s report on child visitation without holding a hearing on the father’s objections?
• Was the mother authorized under the modified joint custody order to move out of state with the children without the father’s permission or a court order?

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court’s decision to adopt the hearing officer’s report and overrule the father’s objections.

Reasons

Per Kennedy J. (Wechsler and Castillo JJ. concurring):

The court found that the modified joint custody order explicitly granted the mother ultimate decision-making authority on significant matters concerning the children, including relocation. The mother complied with the statutory requirement to provide written notice of the move and attempted to resolve timesharing issues with the father. The district court conducted an independent review of the hearing officer’s report and found it supported by substantial evidence, which is defined as evidence a reasonable mind would find adequate to support a conclusion.

Regarding the father’s objections, the court held that Rule 1-053.2(H) NMRA allows the district court discretion to determine whether additional evidence is necessary to resolve objections. The district court reviewed the record, the father’s objections, and the hearing officer’s report, and determined that further evidence was unnecessary. The court concluded that the district court’s review met the requirements of Buffington v. McGorty, 2004-NMCA-092, and that the father was provided a sufficient hearing under the rule.