Guardianship of Arnall, Matter of

Citation610 P.2d 193,1980 NMSC 52,94 N.M. 306
Decision Date29 April 1980
Docket NumberNo. 12714,12714
PartiesIn the Matter of the GUARDIANSHIP of Travis Eugene ARNALL, a minor: Rebecca THATCHER, aka Becky Thatcher, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Charles Eugene ARNALL, Defendant-Appellee.
CourtSupreme Court of New Mexico
Ellen Souberman, Mark Dauner, Leo C. Kelly, Albuquerque, for plaintiff-appellant
OPINION

SOSA, Chief Justice.

The former opinion in this case, filed March 5, 1980, is withdrawn and this opinion is substituted therefor.

This case was certified to this Court by the Court of Appeals pursuant to Section 34-5-14(C)(2), N.M.S.A.1978. The Court of Appeals was unable to concur in any one opinion, so we are asked to finally determine the issues presented. The issues are: (1) whether the district court, not sitting as children's court, has jurisdiction over disputes concerning guardianship, paternity, and termination of parental rights, and (2) whether the trial court's termination of the parental rights of the natural mother violated procedural due process. We decide that the court had jurisdiction, but that the procedural due process rights of the natural mother were violated when her parental rights were terminated.

The maternal grandparents of Travis Eugene Arnall, an infant, filed a petition in the District Court of Bernalillo County, seeking guardianship of the infant. Rebecca Thatcher, the natural mother, consented to the action. The putative father, Charles Eugene Arnall, filed a petition in the same court for custody and guardianship of the child. The mother responded by denying his paternity. After trial, the court found paternity, granted guardianship to the father, and terminated the parental rights of the mother in accordance with Section 40-7-4(A)(2) and (3), N.M.S.A.1978, of the Adoption Act (current version at § 40-7-4(B), N.M.S.A.1978 (Cum.Supp.1979)).

The appellant, Rebecca Thatcher, now challenges the jurisdiction of the district court to determine issues concerning parental rights and the guardianship of minors. She contends that the Legislature has given the children's court division of the district court exclusive jurisdiction over termination proceedings and guardianship of minors, and therefore the district court, not sitting as children's court, cannot determine these issues.

Section 32-1-9(B), N.M.S.A.1978, of the Children's Code, Sections 32-1-1 et seq., N.M.S.A.1978, provides:

The court has exclusive original jurisdiction of the following proceedings under other laws which will be controlled by the provisions of the other laws without regard to provisions of the Children's Code:

(1) for the termination of parental rights;

(2) for the adoption of a minor;

(5) to determine the custody of, or to appoint a custodian or a guardian for a minor. (Emphasis added.)

"Court" is defined as the "children's court division of the district court . . . ." § 32-1-3(C), N.M.S.A.1978 (current version at § 32-1-3(C), N.M.S.A.1978 (Cum.Supp.1979)).

The father argues that Section 32-1-9(B) is unconstitutional under the New Mexico Constitution, and therefore the district court, not sitting as children's court, did have jurisdiction. N.M.Const. Art. VI, § 1 provides:

The judicial power of the state shall be vested in . . . a supreme court, a court of appeals, district courts; probate courts, magistrate courts and such other courts inferior to the district courts as may be established by law from time to time in any district, county or municipality of the state.

N.M.Const. Art. VI, § 13 provides:

The district court shall have original jurisdiction in all matters and causes not excepted in this constitution, and such jurisdiction of special cases and proceedings as may be conferred by law . . . . (Emphasis added.) The question we must decide, therefore, is whether the Legislature can constitutionally limit the power of the district court in some matters to a particular division of the court. We decide that it cannot.

Though the district court as a whole still retains "original jurisdiction" over these matters, particular divisions of the court would be left with a more limited jurisdiction. Such an interference in the original jurisdiction of a court of general jurisdiction is constitutionally impermissible. In order to construe the statutory language in a constitutional manner, State ex rel. Norvell v. Credit Bur. of Albuquerque, Inc., 85 N.M. 521, 514 P.2d 40 (1973), we find that the words "exclusive original jurisdiction" used in Section 32-1-9(B) were not intended to limit or abrogate the jurisdiction of the district court. See In re Santillanes, 47 N.M. 140, 138 P.2d 503 (1943). District courts thus have subject matter jurisdiction to decide matters concerning paternity, guardianship of minors...

To continue reading

Request your trial
11 cases
  • State ex rel. Dept. of Human Services v. Avinger
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of New Mexico
    • 19 Mayo 1986
    ...... of the federal act to conclude that there is preemption of state law on this subject matter. See United Nuclear Corp. v. General Atomic Co., 96 N.M. 155, 198, 629 P.2d 231, 274 (1980). ... See Sec. 32-1-3(C) and In re Guardianship of Arnall, 94 N.M. 306, 610 P.2d 193 (1980). .         DHS claims that the limitation on ......
  • Laurie R., Matter of
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of New Mexico
    • 14 Junio 1988
    ...... See In re Guardianship of Arnall, 94 N.M. 306, 610 P.2d 193 (1980). The granting or denial of a continuance is within the sound discretion of the trial court and will be ......
  • Ottino v. Ottino
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of New Mexico
    • 28 Abril 2000
    ...... moved the district court to dismiss the action, however, arguing that jurisdiction over the matter "rests exclusively within the subject matter, [sic] jurisdiction and venue to the Second Judicial ...See N.M. Const. art. III, § 1; In re Guardianship of Arnall, 94 N.M. 306, 308, 610 P.2d 193, 195 (1980) (recognizing certain statutory "interference ......
  • Kimbrell v. Kimbrell
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of New Mexico
    • 14 Junio 2013
    ...... the district court could not issue the requested injunction since it no longer had subject matter jurisdiction over the case under the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction Enforcement Act (UCCJEA). ... that the nature of her appointment as guardian ad litem supersedes Father's natural guardianship. She also contends that allowing Father to sue the GAL would violate public policy supporting the ... In re Guardianship of Arnall, 94 N.M. 306, 308, 610 P.2d 193, 195 (1980) (stating that although it is “preferable that ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT