Deem v. Lobato

• Decision Date: 23 June 2004
• Docket Number: No. 23,089.,23,089.
• Citation: 96 P.3d 1186,136 N.M. 266
• Parties: Josephine DEEM, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Raymond M. LOBATO and Susan Deem Lobato, Respondents-Appellees.
• Court: Court of Appeals of New Mexico

96 P.3d 1186

136 N.M. 266

Josephine DEEM, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Raymond M. LOBATO and Susan Deem Lobato, Respondents-Appellees.

No. 23,089.

Court of Appeals of New Mexico.

June 23, 2004.

Certiorari Denied, August 4, 2004.

Mary Jo Snyder, Santa Fe, for Appellant.

Robert E. Tangora, Robert E. Tangora, L.L.C., Santa Fe, for Appellee Raymond M. Lobato.

Susan Deem Lobato, Santa Fe, Pro Se Appellee.

Certiorari Denied, No. 28,802, August 4, 2004.

OPINION

ROBINSON, J.

{1} Petitioner Josephine Deem (Grandmother) appeals from the district court order terminating visitation with her granddaughter (Child). See Grandparent's Visitation Privileges Act (the GVA), NMSA 1978, § 40-9-1 to -4 (1993, as amended through 1999). Relying upon Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57, 120 S.Ct. 2054, 147 L.Ed.2d 49 (2000) (plurality opinion), the district court determined that a change in the joint custody arrangement between Child's parents to sole custody with Father provided a sufficient basis to terminate visitation. On appeal, Grandmother raises the following arguments: the district court misapplied the United States Supreme Court decision in Troxel; the change in the custody arrangement did not constitute a showing of good cause under Section 40-9-3(A) of the GVA; and the district court erred when it terminated the existing court-ordered visitation without an evidentiary hearing. We reverse and remand with instructions.

BACKGROUND

{2} Grandmother is the maternal grandmother of Child. Parents (Mother and Father) of Child were divorced in August 1995 when Child was one year old. The parenting plan agreed upon at the time of the divorce granted joint legal custody to Mother and Father, with Father having primary physical custody of Child. In the first few years of Child's life, Grandmother developed a good relationship with Child, and, after the divorce, Mother's visitation with Child took place at Grandmother's home. Subsequently, however, relations between Grandmother and Father became strained and her visits with Child all but ended. In December 1998, Grandmother filed a petition seeking regular visitation with Child to which Father objected.

{3} On February 7 and 11, 2000, after Father requested a continuance of the trial, District Court Judge James Hall conducted a hearing on temporary visitation privileges while the trial on the merits of the visitation petition was pending. See Section 40-9-2(H). At the conclusion, the district court determined that it was in the best interests of Child to have visitation with Grandmother, and temporary visitation was ordered pending a full hearing. The court stated that the interim visits would also serve to provide information to the court for the hearing on the merits. In response to Father's expressed concerns, the district court imposed several restrictions on the visitation, including that it be supervised, that the supervisor report to the court on the visits, that Grandmother's son and daughter not be present, and that Father's sister or brother could attend the visits as observers.

{4} On May 3 and 8, 2000, Judge Hall conducted a trial on the merits of Grandmother's petition for visitation. After considering the factors set forth in Section 40-9-2(G) and giving special weight to the parents' wishes under Troxel, Judge Hall determined that it was in Child's "best interests to have regular, limited visitation with [Grandmother] under certain conditions." Again, in response to Father's concerns, the court set limitations on the visitation, including continuing the supervised visitation, prohibiting Grandmother from giving Child any gifts during visitation, prohibiting Grandmother's son and daughter from being present, and allowing Father to provide an additional observer at visitation. Judge Hall entered his findings of fact and conclusions of law on July 24, 2000. None of the findings of fact was challenged by either party. See Stueber v. Pickard, 112 N.M. 489, 491, 816 P.2d 1111, 1113 (1991) (stating that the unchallenged finding of the district court was binding on appeal).

{5} On October 2, 2001, Mother and Father entered into a stipulated order in the divorce case giving Father sole legal and physical custody of Child "until such time as [Mother] petitions this court for a modification thereof." The order had been signed by Mother and Father and their respective divorce attorneys and also stated "that this order shall have no adverse effects on the association rights of [Mother's] family with [Child]." However, when the order was submitted to the district court, Judge Carol Vigil presiding, the court deleted that provision of the stipulated order on jurisdictional grounds because the grandparent visitation case was before Judge Hall. With that modified order, Father then moved within two weeks to terminate Grandmother's visitation, claiming that as the sole legal custodian of Child he was now entitled to the presumption that his decision regarding visitation was in Child's best interests. Grandmother responded that this single change in circumstance between the parents regarding legal custody was insufficient under the GVA to terminate the court-ordered visitation.

{6} A hearing on Father's motion was set with an initial time allocation of one and one-half hours. In support of continued visitation, Grandmother subpoenaed three witnesses: Mother, Mother's attorney in the divorce proceedings, and the supervisor of the visits between Grandmother and Child. When the hearing was called, however, the court had set aside only thirty or forty minutes to hear the motion. Grandmother reminded the court of the amount of time that had initially been scheduled for the hearing and pointed out that she had three witnesses prepared to testify. The district court, with Judge Daniel Sanchez now presiding on rotation, did not allow Grandmother to call the witnesses and permitted only a proffer of their testimony by Grandmother's attorney. Mother would have testified that she did not intend for the change in custody to affect Grandmother's visitation and that had been one of the conditions for giving sole custody to Father. Her attorney would have testified that all parties had signed off on that condition in the stipulated order before Judge Vigil struck that provision from the order. The visitation supervisor would have testified about what she observed during the visits between Grandmother and Child and also that she thought the visits were good for Child. Grandmother argued to the court that Judge Hall had previously conducted a full hearing on whether visitation would be in the best interests of Child and applied a Troxel analysis to the facts of the case before granting visitation. Therefore, she argued, Father now had the burden under the GVA to come forward with evidence that there was a change in the best interests of Child after the court had awarded visitation.

{7} After hearing the arguments of counsel and reviewing the stipulated order regarding custody, the court summarily ruled that Troxel gave Father, as the sole custodial parent, the discretion to terminate the visitation. Under Troxel, the court opined, Father "as a fit parent and sole legal custodian" was "entitled to a presumption that his decision not to allow visitation between his child and [Grandmother] is in the best interests of his child." The district court also found that the change in legal custody was a material change in circumstances. The court then granted the motion to terminate Grandmother's visitation effective immediately even though a visit with Child was scheduled for later that day. This appeal ensued.

DISCUSSION

{8} Grandmother argues that the district court's misapprehension of Troxel led to the erroneous termination of the previously ordered visitation with Child. She argues that the court erred by not permitting her to present evidence to rebut the presumption stated in Troxel that a parent's decision with regard to grandparent visitation is made in a child's best interest. Finally, she contends that the court incorrectly concluded that the change in Child's legal custody provided a sufficient basis to terminate the visitation. Grandmother contends that under the GVA a change in legal custody between the parents does not by itself constitute good cause for modifying the original court order granting visitation. See § 40-9-3. "This appeal raises questions of law, which we review de novo." Williams v. Williams, 2002-NMCA-074, ¶ 8, 132 N.M. 445, 50 P.3d 194.

{9} Father responds that the sole basis of Judge Hall's decision to grant visitation was that the district court felt that it had to make the decision because Mother and Father disagreed over visitation by Grandmother. Father argued below that under Troxel he was entitled to a presumption that his decision not to allow visitation was in the best interests of Child. He stated that he continued to oppose any court-ordered visitation between Child and Grandmother, and that, as sole legal and physical custodian, he alone had the discretion to make the determination regarding visitation. On appeal, he argues that the district court, relying on Troxel, correctly deferred to Father's decision regarding visitation with Grandmother. He also contends that because Mother relinquished joint custody, her wishes regarding with whom Child may associate "no longer [have] legal significance."

Troxel v. Granville

{10} In Troxel, the United States Supreme Court held in a plurality opinion that a Washington state statute authorizing non-parental visitation with a child, as applied to the facts of that case, unconstitutionally infringed on the due process right of the mother to make decisions concerning the care, custody, and control of her children. Troxel, 530 U.S. at 66-67, 75,120 S.Ct. 2054. The Supreme Court articulated several concerns raised by the case. The first concern was the "breathtakingly broad" nature of the Washington statute. Id. at 67, ...