Roybal v. Garcia
| Decision Date | 25 February 2021 |
| Docket Number | No. A-1-CA-38480,A-1-CA-38480 |
| Parties | CHRISTOPHER R. ROYBAL, Petitioner-Appellee, v. KATRINA R. GARCIA, Respondent-Appellant. |
| Court | Court of Appeals of New Mexico |
This decision of the New Mexico Court of Appeals was not selected for publication in the New Mexico Appellate Reports. Refer to Rule 12-405 NMRA for restrictions on the citation of unpublished decisions. Electronic decisions may contain computer-generated errors or other deviations from the official version filed by the Court of Appeals.
APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF RIO ARRIBA COUNTY
Atler Law Firm, P.C.
Jazmine J. Johnston
Timothy J. Atler
Albuquerque, NM
for Appellee
Elizabeth Stacy Vencill
Albuquerque, NM
for Appellant
{1} Respondent (Mother) appeals the district court's order modifying the joint custody arrangement for the parties' two minor children (Children). We affirm.
{2} The parties share joint legal custody of Children. Previously, pursuant to the parties' custody arrangement, Petitioner (Father) had physical custody of Children on all weekends, excluding the last weekend of each month. Mother had physical custody at all remaining times, with exceptions for holidays and vacations. Also pursuant to the custody arrangement, the parties were to "agree in writing prior to making any major changes in [Children]'s education[.]"
{3} Children were enrolled in Albuquerque Public Schools. At the close of the school year, Father moved the district court to modify the custody arrangement to award him physical custody during the school week and allow him to enroll Children in Los Alamos Public Schools. Father alleged that Mother had violated the parties' custody arrangement by enrolling the children in a charter school without his consent. Father also informed the district court that over the course of the school year, Children were tardy to school nearly forty times, and one of the children accumulated eight unexcused absences.
{4} The district court held a hearing to address Father's motion on July 29, 2019. Both parties testified at the hearing, and the district court ordered an emergency priority consultation. Because the next school year was about to begin, the district court expressed its desire to quickly complete a priority consultation and subsequent hearing on the resulting recommendations. The parties consented to an expedited hearing on the recommendations and a truncated period in which to file objections to the recommendations. The district court set the hearing for August 6, 2019. Mother filed her objections to the priority consultant's recommendations on the same day that the hearing was held, and they were addressed at the hearing.
{5} In relevant part, the priority consultant recommended that Children reside primarily in Los Alamos with Father and attend school at Los Alamos Public Schools. After hearing from both parties, the district court adopted the priority consultant's recommendations with some modifications and entered an order accordingly. The district court's order essentially reversed the custody arrangement between the parties, with Mother now having physical custody of Children on weekends, excluding the last weekend of the month, and Father having physical custody at all remaining times, with exceptions for holidays and vacations. Mother now appeals.
{6} On appeal, we interpret Mother's briefing as composing three arguments: (1) her due process rights were violated because she was provided inadequate notice and opportunity to be heard, was not provided hearings on certain motions, and was unable to cross-examine certain witnesses at the hearing before the district court modified the parties' custody arrangement; (2) the district court failed to find a substantial change in circumstances that affected Children's best interests, as required by law, before modifying the parties' custody arrangement; and (3) the district court acted with bias against her throughout the course of the proceedings below. We address Mother's first two arguments in turn. However, Mother's third argument is based on broad generalizations and is unsupported by the briefing. Accordingly, we decline to address it. See Muse v. Muse, 2009-NMCA-003, ¶ 72, 145 N.M. 451, 200 P.3d 104 (); Headley v. Morgan Mgmt. Corp., 2005-NMCA-045, ¶ 15, 137 N.M. 339, 110 P.3d 1076 ().
{7} Mother argues that the district court did not afford her sufficient due process before it modified the custody arrangement between the parties. As grounds, Mother contends she had insufficient time to prepare for the hearing on the priority consultant's recommendations. Mother further contends that she did not receive hearings for certain motions she filed. Finally, Mother alleges that she was deprived of the right to cross-examine certain witnesses, such as the priority consultant, because they were not present at the hearing. We are not persuaded that Mother's due process rights were violated.
{8} We review claimed due process violations de novo. See Skowronski v. N.M. Pub. Educ. Dep't, 2013-NMCA-034, ¶ 33, 298 P.3d 469. "Whenever a proceeding affects or interferes with the parent-child relationship courts must be careful to afford constitutional due process." In re Pamela A.G., 2006-NMSC-019, ¶ 11, 139 N.M. 459, 134 P.3d 746. "The amount of process due depends on the particular circumstances of each case because procedural due process is a flexible right." Id. ¶ 12. "Procedural due process requires notice to each of the parties of the issues to be determined and opportunity to prepare and present a case on the material issues." In re Laurie R., 1988-NMCA-055, ¶ 22, 107 N.M. 529, 760 P.2d 1295; see Rutherford v. City of Albuquerque, 1992-NMSC-027, ¶ 7, 113 N.M. 573, 829 P.2d 652. ("The essence of procedural due process is that the parties be given notice and an opportunity for a hearing.").
{9} We conclude that Mother has failed to demonstrate that the district court offended her right to procedural due process. Mother cannot complain on appeal of a lack of time to prepare her case due to inadequate notice1 when Mother agreed in the district court to the date of the expedited hearing and to the truncated time period to submit objections to the priority consultant's recommendations. The expedited hearing and truncated time period were crafted with the interests of Children in mind, as the outcome of the hearing would determine at which school Children would be enrolled for the fast-approaching school year. Mother filed her objections to the priority consultant's recommendations on the date of the hearing and was given an opportunity to address those objections at the hearing.
{10} Mother further argues that her due process rights were violated because the district court did not set specific hearings for Mother's motions filed prior to the start of the July 29, 2019 hearing and on July 31, 2019. This argument is insufficientlydeveloped. Mother merely states, without elaboration, that because there were no hearings on these motions "the court violated [her] due process rights." We will not develop this argument for Mother. See Elane Photography, LLC. v. Willock, 2013-NMSC-040, ¶ 70, 309 P.3d 53 (). We note, however, that Mother did not request a court setting for either of these motions, and that a hearing for every motion filed by a party is not required. See Rule 1-007.1(G) NMRA (); LR1-201(D)-(E) (outlining the procedure for requesting a hearing in the First Judicial District Court, and stating that the court may deny the request and rule on the pleadings); cf. State v. Urban, 1989-NMCA-053, ¶ 25, 108 N.M. 744, 779 P.2d 121 (). At the July 29, 2019 hearing, the district court twice asked the parties if there was "anything else that needs to be addressed" and Mother mentioned no issues. To the extent Mother argues that the district court should have held a hearing on her motion filed July 31, 2019, seeking relief from the order entered following the hearing on July 29, 2019, we note that Mother was made aware of the provisions of the order during the hearing and voiced no objections.
{11} Mother's argument that she "was entitled to hear the allegations against her, to examine the witnesses against her and to provide evidence on her own behalf[,]" is equally unavailing. Our courts have long held that Hopkins v. Wollaber, 2019-NMCA-024, ¶ 32, 458 P.3d 583 (alteration, internal quotation marks, and citation omitted). While Mother complains of her inability to cross-examine certain witnesses because they were not present at the hearing, she has failed to sufficiently develop this aspect of her argument as well. Instead, she has merely identified one witness, the priority consultant, whom she wished to cross-examine regarding the information he used to make his recommendations. Further, Mother has not directed us to, and we cannot locate, a place in the record where she alerted the district court that she wished to have the priority consultant present at...
To continue reading
Request your trial