Huey v. Lente
Decision Date | 28 September 1973 |
Docket Number | No. 9777,9777 |
Citation | 1973 NMSC 98,514 P.2d 1093,85 N.M. 597 |
Parties | Gerald HUEY and Bonnie Huey, Petitioners, v. Mary C. LENTE, Respondent. |
Court | New Mexico Supreme Court |
This Application for Termination of Parental Rights was brought in the District Court of Bernalillo County by the Hueys in respect to an infant son of Mary Lente, pursuant to § 22--2--23, N.M.S.A.1953 (Supp.1971).
The district court entered judgment:
'* * * that the parental rights of Respondent Mary Lente to the minor child, Jessie Lente, be and they are hereby terminated.'
Mary Lente appealed. The Court of Appeals on June 20, 1973 handed down its opinion (85 N.M. 585, 514 P.2d 1081 (1973)) reversing the trial court's judgment. However, in doing so, the majority declared the cited statute to be unconstitutional for a variety of reasons.
While not disagreeing with the result reached by the Court of Appeals, we were concerned about the statute having been struck down and granted certiorari. The New Mexico Health And Social Services Department intervened and filed a brief.
The majority opinion disregards at least two basic principles. Firstly, no holding that the statute was unconstitutional was required. Witness the specially concurring opinion of Judge Hernandez reaching the same result as the majority, but on the basis of the statute being constitutional. Courts will not decide constitutional questions unless necessary to a disposition of the case. Ratliff v. Wingfield, 55 N.M. 494, 236 P.2d 725 (1951).
Secondly, if a statute is susceptible to two constructions, one supporting it and the other rendering it void, a court should adopt the construction which will uphold its constitutionality. State v. Morley, 63 N.M. 267, 317 P.2d 317 (1957); State ex rel. Dickson v. Saiz, 62 N.M. 227, 308 P.2d 205 (1957); Abeytia v. Gibbons Garage, 26 N.M. 622, 195 P. 515 (1920); and State ex rel. Clancy v. Hall, State Treasurer, 23 N.M. 422, 168 P. 715 (1917). Again witness Judge Hernandez' opinion. Actually, this principle may be of doubtful application because of our difficulty in following the construction of the majority.
The majority went astray in construing § 22--2--23 E., N.M.S.A.1953 (Supp.1971) which provides:
(Emphasis supplied.)
§ 22--2--33, N.M.S.A.1953 (Supp.1971), captioned in part 'Effect of judgment of adoption' provides in subsection A., (1) that such a judgment has the effect '* * * (1) to relieve the natural parents of all parental rights and responsibilities; * * *.'
This is the section to which the emphasized portion of § 22--2--23(E) obviously refers. Section 22--2--33(A)(2), N.M.S.A.1953 (Supp.1971), which seemingly confused the majority in the Court of Appeals, is not concerned with the termination of parental rights, but rather defines the rights created between an adoptive parent and a child being adopted.
Suffice it to say that from the mentioned erroneous point of departure, the majority proceeded to further errors which arose from a blending of statutes relating to adoption and that which relates to termination of parental consent.
The majority further erred in holding, without citation of authority, that ...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
State v. Ortega
...without saying that we should construe our statutes to avoid a holding that the statute is unconstitutional. See Huey v. Lente, 85 N.M. 597, 598, 514 P.2d 1093, 1094 (1973). Construing Section 30-2-1(A)(2) as requiring proof that the defendant intended to kill the victim (or was knowingly h......
-
Lovelace Medical Center v. Mendez
...of statutory construction that statutes should be construed, if possible, to avoid constitutional questions. See Huey v. Lente, 85 N.M. 597, 598, 514 P.2d 1093, 1094 (1973); State ex rel. Sanchez v. Stapleton, 48 N.M. 463, 472, 152 P.2d 877, 882 As so construed, the requirement was subject ......
-
Rodriguez v. Dairy
...so that it will be constitutional.” (internal quotation marks and citation omitted)); accord Huey v. Lente , 1973–NMSC–098, ¶ 6, 85 N.M. 597, 514 P.2d 1093 (“[I]f a statute is susceptible to two constructions, one supporting it and the other rendering it void, a court should adopt the const......
-
State v. Frawley
... ... , one supporting it and the other rendering it void, a court should adopt the construction which will uphold its constitutionality." Huey v. Lente, 85 N.M. 597, 598, 514 P.2d 1093, 1094 (1973). In the present case, I believe we should adhere to the statutory construction of Section ... ...