Downs, In re
| Decision Date | 15 February 1971 |
| Docket Number | No. 9119,9119 |
| Citation | 481 P.2d 107,82 N.M. 319,1971 NMSC 23 |
| Parties | In the Matter of Laura Leslie DOWNS, a Juvenile. STATE of New Mexico, Appellee, v. Harry DOWNS, Appellant. |
| Court | New Mexico Supreme Court |
This is a juvenile delinquency proceeding brought pursuant to § 13--8--19 et seq., N.M.S.A. (1953 Comp.), in the Juvenile Court of Otero County, New Mexico. The petition alleged that Laura L. Downs, the juvenile, had habitually deported herself as to injure or endanger the morals, health, or welfare of herself or others.
At a hearing before the court the juvenile admitted the charges. The court placed Miss Downs on probation until age 21 and placed her in the custody of her mother. As a part of the hearing, Harry Downs, the juvenile's father, was ordered to pay $75.00 a month for her support. The father, Downs, appealed from this order. The only party before this Court for a review is the appellant, Harry Downs. Consequently, the arguments and authorities raised insofar as the juvenile is concerned will not be considered. It appears that Harry Downs was served with a document labeled 'Citation,' directing him to be present at a hearing on May 1, 1970. At this hearing the juvenile admitted the matters alleged in the petition. Another hearing was set on May 8, 1970, with the appellant father appearing by virtue of the 'Citation.' Near the end of the hearing the court inquired of appellant if there was any reason why he should not contribute to the support of Laura Downs. The appellant made a short reply stating there were reasons that he should not pay. The court then ordered Harry Downs to pay $75.00 per month towards the support of the juvenile.
The appellee contends that this Court has no jurisdiction to entertain an appeal from the juvenile court. This contention has been settled by this Court in Peyton v. Nord, 78 N.M. 717, 437 P.2d 716 (1968), wherein the Court said, 'The juvenile court provided for in the 1955 law is part and parcel of the district court and is not an inferior court created pursuant to Art. VI, § 1, N.M. Const.' Inasmuch as the juvenile court is a division of the district court and not inferior, it follows that such an appeal as this property lies in this Court.
The serious question before us in this cause concerns due process as related to Art. II, § 18, of the New Mexico Constitution and the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. Under due process every citizen is guaranteed that his liberty or property will not be taken from him unfairly. It also insures that he will be informed of any claim against him and will have a chance to present his side of the case. See State ex rel. Reynolds v. Allman, 78 N.M. 1, 427 P.2d 886 (1967) and Sorensen v. Jacobson, 125 Mont. 148, 232 P.2d 332 (1951). In the present case the appellant was ordered to appear as a witness...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Wells Fargo Bank v. Dax
... ... [93 N.M. 741] ... Adequacy of Notice ... Due process requires a reasonable notice of the trial setting so that the person bound by the results of the trial would have the opportunity to have his day in court. State v. Allman, 78 N.M. 1, 427 P.2d 886 (1967); see In re Downs, 82 N.M. 319, 481 P.2d 107 (1971); Westland Development Co. v. Saavedra, 80 N.M. 615, 459 P.2d 141 (1969); In re Nelson, 78 N.M. 739, 437 P.2d 1008 (1968) ... The trial court found that defendants were given adequate notice of trial; this finding necessarily involves notice to the ... ...
-
Rhonda A., Matter of
... ... See In re Laurie R., 107 N.M. 529, 760 P.2d 1295 (Ct.App.1988); In re Doe, 99 N.M. 517, 660 P.2d 607 (Ct.App.1983); see e.g., In re Downs, 82 N.M. 319, 481 P.2d 107 (1971). A parent's right to custody is constitutionally protected and should not be terminated except upon a showing that the proceedings substantially complied with statutory notice requirements and are commensurate with due process of law. See Stanley v. Illinois, 405 ... ...
-
State ex rel. Bowen v. Flowers
... ... Article XIV, Section 1, Federal Constitution and Article III, Section 10, State Constitution; Goldberg v. [155 W.Va. 392] Kelly, 397 U.S. 254, 90 S.Ct. 1011, 25 L.Ed.2d 287; Simpson v. Stanton, 119 W.Va. 235, 193 S.E. 64; In Re Downs, 82 N.M. 319, 481 P.2d 107. The opportunity to be heard is a fundamental requirement of the due process clause. Armstrong v. Manzo, 380 U.S. 545, 85 S.Ct. 1187, 14 L.Ed.2d 62. However, where there is an overriding public interest involved the hearing may be postponed for a reasonable period of ... ...