Albuquerque Divorce Lawyer Blog

What happens when one a parent wants to move out of state, or even to another city within New Mexico? Relocation of one of the parents often has significant consequences for child custody and timesharing.

Relocation of a parent outside of New Mexico, or even within New Mexico, can be a very difficult situation for parents who may have to choose between job or family obligations and being close to their child. It can be an even more difficult situation for a child who is faced with leaving their school and their friends and the possibility of seeing one parent much less frequently than they did before the move.

Both the federal and state constitutions protect the right of citizens to travel and move freely about the county, but while a parent has the right to move, they do not necessarily have the right to take their child with them. Where there is an existing parenting plan setting forth custody and timesharing, a parent who wants to move must file a motion to modify the parenting plan and timesharing agreement as soon as they know they will be moving. A relocating parent should understand that New Mexico will maintain jurisdiction over child custody and timesharing despite the move.

If parents have split, but have never established a formal parenting plan, it is a good idea to get a parenting plan entered by the court prior to moving. In cases where there is no parenting plan, the parent who is not relocating would be very wise to file a Motion with a Temporary Domestic Order to prevent the other parent from taking the child out of state and thereby escaping New Mexico jurisdiction over child custody and timesharing.

When a parent must move suddenly, they should still file a motion to modify timesharing before they leave and either travel back for the hearing or ask the court if they can appear at the hearing via telephone. The relocating parent should be prepared for a long and frustrating process. He or she should also understand that the Court may not look favorably on the relocation for purposes of establishing child custody and timesharing

As with all custody decisions, the court's primary consideration in evaluating a modification of a parenting plan to accommodate a parent's move is the "best interests" of the child or children involved. If one parent has sole legal and physical custody, then the court will most likely find that it is in the best interest of a child to remain with that parent. In a situation where the parents share custody, but one parent wants to move with the child, the court will have to determine whether it is in the best interests of the child to stay in New Mexico or to leave with the relocating parent.

That determination rests heavily on the parent's reason for moving and how much of a disruption the move will cause for the child. The court will consider all of the child's circumstances such as family bonds, friendships, schools, sports, extracurricular activities among other issues. Most importantly, the court will look to see how the move will affect the child's relationship with the other parent. The court will almost always deny a parent's request to move with the child if that request is made as a bad faith attempt to prevent contact between the child and the other parent. Finally, if the change in the parenting plan, custody and timesharing is contested, the case will be referred to family court clinic for a full custody evaluation. This can take months and it rarely moves faster for the convenience of either party.

If a court does grant one parent the right to move with the child, the court will need to devise a new visitation schedule that accommodates the new distance between a child and parents. This can be expensive as parents will now need to pay for travel costs to facilitate visitation and can be very difficult when a child is too young to travel alone. The constraints of time, distance and a child's school schedule are only a few of the factors to be considered when one parent wants to move, which is why it is important that each parent consult an attorney if they are faced with such a potential change to custody and timesharing.

www.CollinsAttorneys.com

The essential component of a Domestic Violence Order of Protection under the New Mexico Family Violence Protection Act is the issuance of a restraining order prohibiting the restrained party from having any contact with the protected party/alleged victim. However, when the restrained party and the protected party have children together the domestic violence hearing officer can also issue short-term decisions regarding child custody, timesharing and child support. In Albuquerque, Rio Rancho and Santa Fe, the hearing officer will often refer the parties to the court clinic or family court services in order to evaluate custody and advise the court as to what is in the best interest of the children involved in the domestic violence case.

Albuquerque, Rio Rancho and Santa Fe each have a variety of court clinic and/or family court services for addressing child custody and time-sharing issues. These offices are staffed by trained psychologists, therapists and social workers who are often called court clinicians. The purpose of a court clinician is to help the judges and hearing officers make custody determinations by conducting an investigation into a child's living situation. This investigation, often referred to as a child custody evaluation, includes interviews of the parents, the child (if the child is old enough) and others involved in the child's daily life such as grandparents, teachers, doctors, counselors and even coaches.

Sometimes a hearing officer will ask a court clinician to appear at a hearing on an Order of Protection on very short notice for an on-call child custody evaluation. This is typically the case in custody matters related to domestic violence actions. In these situations, the hearing officer will call a recess from the hearing in order to allow the on-call clinician to speak to all of the parties present and make a child custody and timesharing recommendation that is in the child's best interest. If the on-call clinician determines that more investigation needs to be done they may ask the hearing officer to order a priority consultation which a more thorough but expedited custody evaluation. However, the on-call clinician will make interim recommendations based upon preliminary findings that will stand pending the priority consultation

A priority consultation is a more in-depth evaluation by the court clinician and will usually be held sometime after the domestic violence hearing. It may include interviewing others in the child's life not present in court at the domestic violence hearing and reviewing any relevant documentation about the parents' or the child's mental health. If the court clinician feels like still more investigation is needed, there may be a request that the hearing officer or the judge order that the parties participate in an advisory consultation, which often requires all the parties involved to undergo psychological testing and may span a period months, often many months due to the heavy caseload in the court clinic.

At the end of an on-call, priority or advisory consultation, the court clinician will make recommendations to the hearing officer or judge as to what the parties' timesharing arrangement should be. Each party has ten (10) days to object to the recommendations issued by the court clinician. If no objections are filed within the 10 day time period, the recommendations are adopted as an order of the Court.

A hearing on an Order of Protection can have lasting effects on a restrained party's liberty and their right to see their children, which make is extremely important that you consult an attorney if a Petition for Order of Protection is filed against you. Every case is unique and requires individual analysis to protect both your interests and the interests of your children. No matter which side you are on, it is typically inadvisable to attend these hearings without an attorney.

www.CollinsAttorneys.com

A Qualified Domestic Relations Order ("QDRO") is a specialized order issued by the Court to divide retirement benefits during a divorce proceeding. As a community property state, the law in New Mexico provides that each spouse is entitled to 50% of the retirement benefits earned by the other spouse during the marriage. Retirements benefits can include, among other things, pension plans, deferred compensation accounts and 401(k) plans.

Retirement plans can often be one of the most valuable community assets owned by a divorcing couple and there are different ways to approach division of retirement benefits. As a preliminary matter, the parties must determine the value of the retirement benefit at issues. This determination can be fairly simple as in the case of 401(k) account, which contains a readily identifiable amount of money on any given day. In contrast, the value of pension plans can vary greatly depending on how much the employee spouse is making at the time of retirement and at what age the employee spouse retires. In complicated retirement cases, the parties and their attorneys should think seriously about hiring an actuary or other trained expert to determine the value of the disputed retirement benefit.

After the value of a retirement plan is determined, then the parties (or the Court) must also decide how and when the benefits will be distributed. In the case of some 401(k) plans, the parties can split the account at the time of divorce. In the case of other pension plans, neither party receives their share of the retirement plan until the employee spouse actually retires.

The QDRO should address all of the issues regarding valuation and distribution of retirement benefits. Though it would seem that the valuation and division would be a straightforward mathematical calculation, the division of retirement accounts is often hotly contested. The drafting of the QDRO can be highly contentious. In turn, the QDRO must be submitted to the court for approval and then submitted to the QDRO administrator for its approval. Each plan requires specific language and Orders are often rejected for what appear to be very trivial drafting issues.

There are some QDRO administrators that will review the Order prior to filing with the court. Others require a court approved Order prior to review. In these cases, the Order may take several trips through the drafting process, approval by the Court and final approval by the plan administrator. This process can take a very long time.

In cases where retirement benefits are hotly disputed and the parties cannot agree on drafting, it is often beneficial to have a third party attorney draft the QDRO to reduce the conflict between the parties and their attorneys. Though this will often reduce the conflict and expedite the drafting process, even this step cannot alleviate the conflict in some cases. In those cases, it is often necessary to seek the intervention of the Court. Where this becomes necessary, the parties can be assured that they are embarking on a very expensive adventure.

www.CollinsAttorneys.com

A domestic violence order of protection is a type of restraining order issued to protect victims of domestic violence under New Mexico's Family Violence Protection Act. Domestic violence cases in New Mexico are often filed in criminal court where the penal consequences can be severe. The Family Violence Protection Act provides another layer of protection for alleged victims of domestic violence in New Mew Mexico civil courts.

Though these cases are filed in civil court, a finding of domestic violence has very serious consequences. As such, it is imperative that anyone facing one of these proceedings consult with an attorney, and have one present at the hearing if at all possible.

After an alleged victim of domestic abuse (called the Protected Party) files a Petition for Order of Protection Against Domestic Abuse alleging that another person (called the Restrained Party) has committed an act of domestic abuse, the court will issue a Temporary Order of Protection against the Restrained Party and order both parties to appear at a hearing.

The Temporary Order of Protection forbids the Restrained Party from any contact with the Protected Party until the hearing. This often means that a Restrained Party cannot return to their home and it also prohibits contact by telephone, e-mail and texting.

Though an Order of Protection is not a criminal action, a Restrained Party who violates the Order of Protection in any way can be charged with a crime. In addition, the Restrained Party can also be charged with contempt of court and jailed until a hearing is held. In serious domestic violence cases, the judge can hold the Restrained Party following the hearing under its contempt powers. So if you are served with an Order of Protection, it is very important that you read the terms of the Order carefully and strictly obey them.

At the hearing, which should occur quickly after the filing of the Petition, the court will decide whether or not an act of domestic abuse has occurred. Depending on where you live, the hearing may be presided over by a judge, a hearing officer or a special commissioner. In Albuquerque, Santa Fe and Rio Rancho, these hearings are heard by Domestic Violence Hearing Officers. If the presiding official makes a finding that domestic abuse has occurred, the can issue an extended Order of Protection that extends for 6 months. The alleged victim may file a Motion to Extend Domestic Violenc Order of Protection in cases where there is an ongoing threat of domestic violence.

As stated, a finding of domestic violence can have serious long-term implications, including registration as domestic violence offender, prohibitions on gun ownership, deportation, bars to certain employment including any job requiring a firearm, and problems with security clearance which is often most serious of all in New Mexico. Further, the extended Order of Protection not only prevents the Restrained Party from contacting the Protected Party, but it can also include provisions regarding custody of children, distribution of property and can order the parties involved to attend counseling.

Parties to a Petition for Order of Protection may want to consider agreeing to a Stipulated Order of Protection, which can allow them to avoid a finding of domestic violence while allowing the alleged victim all the protections of an Order of Protection. This will avoid the finding of domestic violence and most of the consequences outlined above. In most cases, this is not only best for the Restrained party but also for the alleged victim since a domestic violence finding will often result in the loss of employment and loss of support for the alleged victim and the children to the relationship.

www.CollinsAttorneys.com

A variety of complicated emotional and legal issues arise when a person dies. And those issues get even more complicated when the deceased is involved in a pending divorce action. Does one party's death end the divorce proceeding? Does the surviving spouse serve as personal representative of the deceased spouse's estate? How does the Probate Code (the body of laws governing the estate of a deceased person) interact with the statues governing Domestic Affairs? The New Mexico Court of Appeals addressed these questions in two 2009 cases.

These questions are very important in a divorce action which is after all a dissolution of marriage. A dissolution of marriage means a division of property and debt. All community property and debt must be divided according to the law. It also means that the separate property and debt must be identified and divided as such. The division of property and debt has significant consequences for the parties. The division may also raise claims by creditors against the community property by creditors including mortgage companies, credit card companies, and even the IRS. As such, the fact that divorce legally survives the death of one of the parties is no trivial matter.

In Karpien v. Karpien, a case that arose in Sandoval County, the wife died during the parties' divorce proceeding which is commenced upon filing the Petition for Dissolution of Marriage. The district court appointed the wife's parents as the personal representatives of her estate (the personal representative is the party in charge of distributing the assets and addressing the outstanding obligations of a deceased person). The husband objected to the appointment of the wife's parents and argued that the wife's death essentially ended the divorce proceeding and that he was entitled to his inheritance as the surviving spouse under the Probate Code. The Court of Appeals disagreed with the husband and ruled that, upon the death of a spouse during a divorce proceeding, the divorce proceeding continues and the personal representative is charged with representing the interests of the deceased spouse.

But what if the will of the deceased spouse appoints the surviving spouse as personal representative? Just this situation arose in a case out of Albuquerque known as Oldham v. Oldham, in which the husband died during a divorce proceeding. The husband's will appointed his wife as the personal representative of his estate, which would have meant that the wife was charged with representing the husband's interest against herself in the divorce proceeding. The Court of Appeals overturned that appointment and ruled that such a situation created an inherent conflict of interest on the part of the personal representative, who in this case was the opposing party in the divorce action. The Court of Appeals sent the case back to the district court with instructions that the district court appoint another appropriate person to serve as the personal representative so that the divorce proceeding could be concluded.

When a family member dies, it is always important to consult an attorney about the probate process. And when that death occurs during a divorce, it becomes even more important to consult an attorney to make sure that all parties involved are compliant with both the Probate Code and the Domestic Relations statutes.

www.CollinsAttorneys.com

The law in New Mexico is very protective of parental rights. On occasions, the mother or father of a child who has been absent from the child's life for an extended period of time, many times for years, will show up wanting time-sharing with the child. On some occasions, the long lost parent will even demand custody.

In New Mexico, both parents have an ongoing right to visitation and time-sharing until the child is eighteen, even if one parent has chosen not to exercise that visitation for years. However, just because a parent has the right to time-sharing does not mean that a parent who has not had any meaningful contact with their child for months, or years, has the right to show up at your door and demand to take the child for the weekend. It certainly does not allow for a change in custody to accommodate the absent parent's whims.

The first step in such a situation is always for the parents to try to reach a time-sharing agreement that they are both comfortable with. If the parents can't come to an agreement, then either party can petition the court for an order establishing custody and time-sharing through a parenting plan. In cases of extended absences of a parent, an agreement is frequently impossible for numerous reasons not the least of which is the resistance of the child who may not even know the newly arrived parent.

The parenting plan established by the Court will provide the details of time-sharing if any. If the parents cannot reach an agreement, the Court will enter a parenting plan, often temporary in nature, with the assistance of Family Court Clinic or a private expert custody evaluator.

In the Second Judicial District in Albuquerque, cases involving contested child custody will often be sent to Court Clinic where a number of counselors and/or psychologists will conduct a full custodial evaluation. The Court Clinic's primary role, as is the role of the Court, is to determine the best interests of the child. The court through Court Clinic recommendations may also order that the parents work with an outside therapist or appoint a guardian ad litem to help the parties devise an appropriate time-sharing schedule.

In evaluating a time-sharing schedule and parenting plan, the court will always look to the best interests of the child. In determining what is in a child's best interest, the court looks at a variety of factors, including the child's age, their relationship with both parents and the child's current living situation, which is also called the status quo. As children grow older, particularly when they reach age 12, they have more and more input into the process. Once children reach 14 years of age, the Court will except in exceptional situations defer to the child's wishes.

There are many considerations that go into the determination of time-sharing in a case like this. It may be that the newly arrived parent will get only limited time-sharing. In rare cases, the parent will get no time-sharing such as when the child has reached age 14 and simply refuses time-sharing with the long lost parent. Each case is unique requiring a great deal of time and work to achieve a result.

www.CollinsAtttorneys.com

In the recent case of Vescio v. Wolf, the New Mexico Court of Appeals discussed the issue of third-party child custody, which refers to a situation in which a person other than a child's mother or father seeks custody of that child. In Vescio, a child's aunt filed a petition for custody and timesharing against the child's mother and grandmother, who had been appointed the kinship guardian of the child (the child's father was not involved with the child's life or this case).

The aunt initially based her petition on alleged abuse of the child by the mother and grandmother, however, the New Mexico Children Youth and Families Department (CYFD) found the allegations of abuse to be unsubstantiated. The district court dismissed the aunt's petition because she lacked standing to seek custody under the regular child custody statutes.

In the Vescio opinion, the Court of Appeals listed five primary situations in which a third-party may be awarded child custody in New Mexico: 1) when extraordinary circumstances exist and there is no other adequate remedy available; 2) during an action for dissolution of marriage; 3) when a parent or guardian for the child dies, the court can award custody to a third-party under the Probate Code; 4) when there has been a finding of abuse and neglect by CYFD; and 5) when a third-party files a petition for custody under the Kinship Guardianship Act.

The Court of Appeals upheld the dismissal of the aunt's petition because it did not properly fall within any of the situations listed above. However, the Court ruled that the aunt would have standing to file a motion to revoke the grandmother's guardianship under the Kinship Guardianship Act.

If you are a third-party thinking about seeking custody of a child, this case illustrates that importance of consulting with an attorney in order to ensure that you use the proper body of law as a basis for your claim.

www.CollinsAttorneys.com

Unfortunately, there comes a time in the lives of many adults when they are impaired to the point where they can no longer make decisions for themselves. This impairment can be the result of mental illness, physical disability or drug and alcohol abuse. In such situations, the New Mexico Probate Code Adult Guardianship provisions allows for the appointment of a guardian and/or a conservator to make important decisions for the impaired person. A guardian makes personal and health care decisions for the impaired person, which a conservator makes decisions related to the financial affairs and property of the impaired person.

Any person over the age of eighteen, or properly registered corporation, may serve as a guardian or conservator and the same person or entity does not have to serve as both guardian and conservator. For instance, often the spouse of an incapacitated person will be appointed as their guardian, but a bank will be appointed as conservator. Every guardian and conservator must be appointed to serve by the District Court.

While any party interested in the estate, affairs or welfare of an incapacitated person may file a petition to be appointed as guardian or conservator, the process is very complicated. The courts take these appointments very seriously because by appointing a guardian or conservator, the court is essentially taking away the fundamental right of the impaired person to make decisions for themselves. The incapacitated person and certain family members must be given notice of the appointment proceeding and the court will appoint a guardian ad litem to represent and protect he incapacitated person.

The court will also appoint a court visitor, which is usually a health care professional or social worker, and a qualified health care professional to evaluate whether or not the person is actually incapacitated to the extent that a guardian or conservator is necessary.

To further complicate things, a guardian or conservator can also be given limited guardianship authority, if the court believes that the person is only partially incapacitated and is still capable of making some decisions for his or herself. Given the wide variety of issues involved in the appointment of a guardian or conservator, it is a good idea to consult an attorney about the process if you believe that family member or loved one is in need of such supervision.

www.CollinsAttorneys.com

Just to make the community property versus separate property distinction even more complicated, sometimes the different types of property can be so intermingled that the property that was once separate becomes community or property that was community can become separate property (although this second example is very rare). This process of mixing property is often comingling or transmutation, which was described in a 1982 case from the Second Judicial Court in Albuquerque, called Allen v. Allen.

The most common way that property is comingled or transmuted is by gift. For instance, in the Allen case, the wife owned a piece of property prior to the marriage, which she later deeded to herself and her husband jointly. The Court ruled that the deed was evidence of the wife's intent to gift the property to the community, which changed the property from separate to community.

However, property can also be transmuted without a document specifically designating a gift, but rather through the actions of the parties. This situation commonly arises with a home owned by one spouse prior to the marriage. Under the basic rules of community property, the marital home would be the separate property of the spouse who owned the home prior to the marriage. However, what often happens is that the mortgage payments for that home are made from the parties' community funds (remember that all income earned during the marriage constitute community funds, even if the parties have separate bank accounts).

The donative intent of the spouse giving the separate property to the community is the key to evaluating whether or not the property was gifted. And without a document specifically identifying a gift, it can be very difficult to prove that intent. These cases may require hiring an outside expert to trace all of the funds applied toward the property, which can be a very expensive process. As with any divorce settlement process, the spouses arguing over possible transmuted property need to balance the value of the property in question against the potentially high cost of proving transmutation.

www.CollinsAttorneys.com