State ex rel. Children, Youth and Families Department v. Andree G., No. 25,869 (N.M. App. 5/10/2007)
| Decision Date | 10 May 2007 |
| Docket Number | No. 25,869.,25,869. |
| Parties | STATE OF NEW MEXICO, ex rel. CHILDREN, YOUTH AND FAMILIES DEPARTMENT, Petitioner, v. ANDREE G., Respondent, and MOHAMMED A., n/k/a SYDNEY B., Respondent-Appellee, and In the Matter of JOSHUA G., a Child, v. STATE OF NEW MEXICO, ex rel. HUMAN SERVICES DEPARTMENT, Petitioner in Intervention-Appellant. |
| Court | Court of Appeals of New Mexico |
Appeal from the District Court of Lincoln County, Karen L. Parsons, District Judge.
NM Children, Youth & Families Dept., Rebecca J. Liggett, Santa Fe, NM, for Petitioner.
Andree G., Capitan, NM, pro se Respondent.
Adam D. Rafkin, P.C., Adam D. Rafkin, Ruidoso, NM, for Respondent-Appellee.
NM Human Services Dept., M. Elizabeth Price, Las Cruces, NM, for Petitioner in Intervention-Appellant.
{1} In this appeal, we determine whether the New Mexico Human Services Department (HSD) is entitled to reopen and intervene in a neglect proceeding to recover child support from Father, on behalf of Mother. HSD argues that the district court has continuing, exclusive jurisdiction over Father's child support obligation to Child because it entered an order in the neglect proceeding requiring Father to reimburse the Children, Youth and Families Department (CYFD) for the support and maintenance of Child while in CYFD's protective custody. HSD also seeks to contest the validity of a child support order issued by a Texas court, and to obtain a determination that the district court's order controls over the Texas court's order, and thus, New Mexico has continuing, exclusive jurisdiction over child support matters pursuant to the Uniform Interstate Family Support Act (UIFSA), NMSA 1978, §§ 40-6A-100 to -903 (1994, as amended through 1997, prior to 2005 amendment), and the Full Faith and Credit for Child Support Orders Act (FFCCSOA), 28 U.S.C. § 1738B (2000).
{2} We hold that because HSD initiated a UIFSA proceeding in Texas following the dismissal of the neglect case, and invoked the jurisdiction of the Texas court to establish child support on behalf of Mother without providing information about the prior order entered by the New Mexico court, HSD is now precluded from collaterally attacking the Texas order, which is entitled to full faith and credit, and from relitigating Mother's claims of child support against Father in New Mexico. We therefore affirm the district court's refusal to reopen the matter.
{3} This case originated as a proceeding for "[a] family in need of court-ordered services" pursuant to NMSA 1978, § 32A-3B-2 (1993) of the Children's Code, but has evolved into an interstate child support dispute between a single mother and an absent father. Mother and Child are residents of New Mexico. Father is a resident of Texas.
{4} On April 3, 2000, CYFD filed a petition in district court for court-ordered family services pursuant to Section 32A-3B-2. Child, who was then thirteen-years-old, had run away from home. He refused to return home, and Mother did not want him to come home because she was afraid of him and could no longer handle him due to his anger issues. As a result, Child was placed in the protective custody of CYFD on March 30, 2000.
{5} On June 26, 2000, the district court determined that the family was in need of court-ordered services, ordered that Child remain in the legal custody of CYFD, and adopted a treatment plan for Child and Mother. The district court also referred the matter to the Child Support Enforcement Division (CSED) of HSD to determine whether Mother was liable for ongoing child support.
{6} On December 11, 2001, CYFD filed an abuse and neglect petition against Mother and Father, alleging that Child was neglected in that Mother was unable to adequately care for Child due to her physical or mental disorder, and Father had abandoned and failed to support Child. The petition further alleged that Mother and Father were responsible for paying "reasonable costs of support and maintenance" of Child that they are financially able to pay if Child is adjudicated to be neglected or abused and is placed with an agency or an individual other than the parent. See NMSA 1978, § 32A-4-26 (1993). The petition requested that the matter be referred to CSED for enforcement of the parents' obligation to pay the "reasonable costs of support and maintenance" of Child while in CYFD's custody.
{7} Mother entered a plea of no contest to the allegations of neglect in the petition. Father filed an answer to the petition, neither admitting nor denying that he is the father of Child, demanding proof of paternity, and denying that he had neglected Child, but stating that he would satisfy any "lawful obligation" to pay child support for Child as determined by the court. A paternity test ordered by the district court established Father as the biological father of Child. Consequently, Father entered a plea of no contest to the allegations of paternity and neglect in the petition.
{8} On June 25, 2002, the district court entered a judgment and disposition finding that Child was neglected and ordering that Child remain in the legal custody of CYFD. The district court further ordered that the matter be referred to CSED to determine whether Mother and Father are liable for ongoing child support. The judgment provided that "CYFD may share information with CSED to identify and locate the parents of [Child] for the purpose of collection of child support from the parents."
{9} On September 19, 2002, the district court held a permanency hearing as to Mother and an initial judicial review hearing as to Father. Following the permanency hearing, the district court ordered that legal custody of Child be returned to Mother based on the significant improvements made by Child and Mother. During the initial judicial review hearing, CYFD acknowledged that Father had complied with the court-ordered treatment plan requiring that he provide income information for the calculation of child support to be paid to CYFD for the time Child was in CYFD's custody. The attorney for CYFD stated that she could prepare a worksheet calculating the amount of child support owed by Father to CYFD and "put together" a child support order. However, no order calculating the amount of child support owed by Father was ever presented to the district court.
{10} The issue of Father's child support obligation to Mother and Child was also raised at the judicial review hearing. Father's attorney acknowledged that "[M]other and [C]hild may have a right to pursue retroactive and ongoing child support and agreed that CYFD could give them the financial information to pursue those claims." However, the attorneys for Father and CYFD did not think the district court had jurisdiction to address the child support claims between Mother and Father in the neglect proceeding, pointing out that only the issue of Father's reimbursement of child support to CYFD was before the court. The district court agreed, reminding the parties to file any necessary pleadings or causes of action in pursuing additional support claims against Father and suggesting that such relief be sought in a separate or different proceeding. HSD never intervened, and no pleadings were filed on behalf of Mother, to collect child support from Father in the neglect proceeding prior to the motion to reopen.
{11} On October 17, 2002, the district court entered an initial judicial review order, which HSD contends is the "controlling order" pursuant to UIFSA and FFCCSOA. The district court found that Father "substantially complied with the treatment plan previously ordered by the [c]ourt by providing income information for the purpose of calculating child support" for Child, and ordered Father to "reimburse CYFD for child support due and owing according to the New Mexico Child Support Guidelines" for the time Child was in CYFD's custody. The district court further directed CSED to calculate the support owed, setting the period of reimbursement from December 3, 2001 through September 19, 2002. However, no additional child support order was ever presented to the court.
{12} Following a judicial review hearing on March 6, 2003, the district court entered an order dismissing the neglect action with prejudice. During the hearing, it was reported that Child had made considerable progress and was doing well living with Mother. The issue of child support was once again raised by the parties, and the district court and counsel reiterated that they thought the district court lacked jurisdiction to hear Mother's claim for child support from Father in the neglect case.
{13} On May 21, 2003, Mother applied for services with HSD. On October 30, 2003, Mother, through HSD and the Office of the Attorney General of Texas, filed a petition in Texas district court seeking to establish child support from Father pursuant to Texas' UIFSA. On February 5, 2004, the Texas court issued an agreed final order awarding monthly child support in the amount of $703 to Mother for a limited period beginning February 2004 and ending September 2004. There is no indication from the record that either party appealed the Texas support order.
{14} Instead, on May 18, 2004, HSD filed motions to intervene and reopen the neglect proceeding in district court to recover child support from Father, on behalf of Mother. HSD also filed a motion to determine controlling order based on the existence of both the district court's order that Father reimburse CYFD for child support and the Texas court's order establishing Father's monthly child support obligation to Mother. Finally, HSD filed a statement of registration of foreign support order for purposes of determining continuing, exclusive jurisdiction, controlling order, and validity of the Texas order. In response to HSD's motions, Father filed a limited entry of appearance to contest personal jurisdiction and a motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction.
{15} Following a hearing...
To continue reading
Request your trial