Petition of Quintana, 9382

Decision Date09 June 1972
Docket NumberNo. 9382,9382
Citation1972 NMSC 38,497 P.2d 1404,83 N.M. 772
PartiesPetition of Dominico QUINTANA and Alice Quintana to Adopt Deborah Jean Quintena and Marvin James Quintana. Anastacia Garcia QUINTANA, Appellant, v. Dominico QUINTANA and Alice Quintana, his wife, Appellees.
CourtNew Mexico Supreme Court
OPINION

OMAN, Justice.

Appellant, Anastacia Garcia Quintana, mother of the two minor children, has appealed from decrees of adoption whereby the children were declared adopted by their paternal grandparents, the appellees. We affirm.

Deborah was born on January 27, 1963 and Marvin on December 30, 1963. The father of the children is the son of appellees, and he was convicted and sent to prison in the early part of 1965. Soon thereafter appellant left the children with acquaintances. On February 24, 1965 appellees received calls from one of these acquaintances with whom the children had been left and from a sister of appellant advising appellees that appellant had left the children and that they were in need, and inquiring of appellees what they were going to do about taking care of the children.

Appellees thereupon took custody of the children. About this time appellant left Las Vegas, where she, the children and the appellees all lived. She went to Albuquerque to look for work. Appellees have had custody of the children since February 24, 1965 and have fully supported and taken care of them. The petition for adoption of the children was filed on April 15, 1970. The father gave his consent to the adoption. On July 21, 1970 a hearing was held at which one of the principal issues tried and the issue then decided was whether appellant's consent to the adoption should and could properly be dispensed with pursuant to the provisions of § 22--2--6(d), N.M.S.A.1953. Sections 22--2--1 to 19, inclusive, were subsequently repealed by Ch. 222, § 18 of the 1971 Laws of New Mexico.

The statutory provision relied upon for dispensing with appellant's consent stated:

'(d) After diligent search and inquiry, the names of the parent or parents or legal guardian, or their whereabouts, are unknown and cannot be ascertained; or where the parent or parents or guardian have wilfully failed to maintain and support the child, when obligated and financially able to do so, or have been guilty of such cruelty, depravity, abuse, or gross neglect toward the child that, in the opinion of the court, the child should be removed from the custody of such parent or guardian.'

Section 22--2--6(d), N.M.S.A.1953

At the time appellant left the children in 1965 she was nineteen years of age. At the time of the hearing on July 21, 1970 appellees were sixty-four and fifty-seven years of age, respectively. In the decision of the court entered subsequent to said hearing the following appear as a portion of the court's findings and conclusions.

'FINDINGS

'5. In 1965, Respondent (appellant) left her said children in the care of acquaintances and soon thereafter Petitioners (appellees) were notified to take said children into their care, which Petitioners did.

'6. The children were undernourished, without adequate clothing and in ill health when Petitioners took them into their care.

'7. The children sought to be adopted have been cared for continuously by Petitioners since 1965.

'8. Petitioners have provided said children with all their needs since 1965.

'9. Respondent resides in Albuquerque, New Mexico, and during the past five years has visited her children infrequently, namely, once or twice a year.

'10. During the past five years, Respondent has not provided for any of the needs of her said children, other than sending an occasional gift or other token of remembrance.

'11. Respondent has given birth to a child since her separation from her husband and is by another man, and this child is now in her custody.

'12. Respondent, during the past five years, has been gainfully employed, or has had other sources of income.

'13. Respondent has for the past five years failed to demonstrate a montherly or parental interest in her two children sought to be adopted by Petitioners.

'CONCLUSIONS

'2. Respondent, Anastacia Garcia Quintana, has been guilty of gross neglect towards her children, Deborah Jean Quintana and Marvin James Quintana.

'3. The consent of Respondent, Anastacia Garcia Quintana, to the proposed adoption of Deborah Jean Quintana and Marvin James Quintana, by Dominico Quintana and Alice Quintana, his wife, should be dispensed with.'

The district court thereupon entered an order dispensing with appellant's consent to the adoption and she appealed to this court from the order. The appeal was dismissed. Quintana v. Quintana, 82 N.M. 698, 487 P.2d 126 (1971). The cause was then reinstated on the docket of the district court, and was set for final hearing on the merits on August 27, 1971. The petition for adoption was granted and the decrees of adoption from which this appeal was taken were entered on September 2, 1971.

In addition to receiving evidence at the hearing on July 21, 1970 and August 27, 1971, the district court also received from the Child Welfare Division of the New Mexico Department of Public Welfare a report recommending the granting of the petition of appellees to adopt the children. This report was furnished pursuant to the provisions of § 22--2--7, N.M.S.A.1953.

In addition to the foregoing recited facts, the record shows, without contradiction, that appellant secured work upon going to Albuquerque in February 1965, and has been regularly employed at a salary ranging from $55 to $75 per week, and the annual income of appellees, who have supported and cared for the children since February 24, 1965, is $3,000 per year.

Appellant relies upon two points for reversal. The first of these is her contention that the facts of this case do not fall within the provisions of § 22--2--6(d), supra, and, consequently, the trial court had no basis for dispensing with the consent of appellant or for granting the decrees of adoption.

The first argument made under this point is that: 'Abandonment is not one of the specified situations in our statutory provisions,' under which the court can...

To continue reading

Request your trial
14 cases
  • D'Avignon v. Graham
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of New Mexico
    • November 7, 1991
    ... ... See Quintana v. New Mexico Dep't of Corrections, 100 N.M. 224, 668 P.2d 1101 (1983) (purpose of rules of ... ...
  • Spingola v. Spingola
    • United States
    • New Mexico Supreme Court
    • June 5, 1978
    ... ... At the time this petition was filed, the children were aged 6, 10 and 13 and the father's income had increased to ... Petition of Quintana, 83 N.M. 772, 497 P.2d 1404 (1972) ...         ( 2) Consideration should be given to what ... ...
  • State ex rel. Cyfd v. Andree G.
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of New Mexico
    • October 15, 2007
    ... ... After the case was dismissed, Mother filed a petition in the Texas district court to recover child support from Father pursuant to the Texas UIFSA. The ... "to reimburse the State for costs it incurs in providing services to a child"); In re Quintana, 83 N.M. 772, 774, 497 P.2d 1404, 1406 (1972) (recognizing that both parents owe a minor child a ... ...
  • Doe's Adoption, Matter of
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of New Mexico
    • August 31, 1976
    ...the word 'abandonment'. Decisions under the prior law refer to or discuss abandonment but do not define the term. Petition of Quintana, 83 N.M. 772, 497 P.2d 1404 (1972); Nevelos v. Railston, 65 N.M. 250, 335 P.2d 573 (1959). The same is true of 'abandonment' as a criminal offense--the stat......
  • 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