Case Title: Guzman v. Avila

Citation: 265 P.2d 363, 58 N.M. 43

Docket Number: 

State: new-mexico

Court: New Mexico Supreme Court

Date: 1954-01-04T00:00:00Z

Document:
265 P.2d 363 (1954) 58 N.M. 43 GUZMAN et al. v. AVILA et al. No. 5573. Supreme Court of New Mexico. January 4, 1954. J. D. Weir, L. J. Maveety, W. C. Whatley, Las Cruces, for plaintiffs in error. None, for defendants in error. LUJAN, Justice. This controversy involves the custody of a nine-year-old child. The plaintiffs in error, to whom reference is hereinafter made as plaintiffs, filed their petition in the district court of Dona Ana County, to adopt one Yolanda Garcia, the natural daughter of Adela Garcia Avila and step-daughter of Henry Avila, defendants in error hereinafter designated as defendants. At the conclusion of the trial the lower *364 court dismissed the petition and plaintiffs contend that the court below should have sustained it and bring this cause here to correct the errors which it is alleged the court committed by its action in the premises. This is one of that unfortunate class of cases which is painful and distressing to the parties and judges alike, and presents the most perplexing questions which courts are called upon to decide. Whatever conclusion we reach there will be the consciousness of the indescribable heartaches, misery and suffering which it brings the losing party. At the outset we are confronted with the presumption that the decision of the lower court was correct. The duty of deciding the controversy over the rights to the custody of this child was a delicate one, lodged with the district judge who heard the matter, and his decision ought not to be disturbed except upon a clear showing of an abuse of discretion. Section 35-102 of 1941 Compilation, provides: This statute gives the parents or parent the care and custody of their minor child or children, but the right is not absolute. Sections 5 and 6 of Chapter 156 of the Session Laws of 1951, provide: The provisions of the above act are primarily based upon the consent of the *365 child's parents or parent, if under twelve years of age, if living and accessible, and the exceptions, which permit adoption without such consent, must clearly come within the provisions of the Act. The record discloses that originally the defendant Adela Garcia who is now Adela Garcia Avila, having married Henry Avila, was, on January 13, 1946, granted an absolute divorce from Arturo Garcia and awarded the custody of the minor child, Yolanda; that prior to January 13, 1943, the day the child was born, the defendant, Adela Garcia Avila, resided on Hadley and San Pedro streets, Las Cruces, New Mexico; that Arturo Garcia was at that time in the armed service of his country; that she was receiving an allotment of from $60 to $70 per month from the government; that a few days after Yolanda was born she and the child moved to the home of Arturo Garcia's grandmother where they remained approximately one year; that in 1944 she and the baby moved to the home of her uncle and aunt, on a farm, where they remained approximately one year; that in 1945 she and the child moved to Las Cruces where she rented an apartment and both resided therein until 1947, when she and her husband and a daughter born from her present marriage moved to the state of California where they resided until March of 1952; that at that time the plaintiff, Josephine Guzman, the paternal grandmother of Yolanda, pleaded with her, Adela Garcia Avila, to permit the child to stay at her home until such time as they were settled in their new home; that it was with this understanding that Adela permitted the child to remain with said plaintiffs; that during the time defendants lived in California, the defendant, Adela, came to Las Cruces twice a year to visit her daughter; that while defendants lived in California they sent the child clothing and other things to the extent of $300 per year; that on March 15, 1952, defendants came to Las Cruces for the purpose of taking Yolanda with them and while enroute home, at Lordsburg, New Mexico, the child was taken away from them under an order issued by the district court which was procured by plaintiffs upon an affidavit and without a hearing; that plaintiffs filed their petition herein without any notice to or knowledge thereof on the part of either defendant. Errors are assigned to the number of sixteen. In so far as these errors are submitted for our consideration, they are included within five points, the substance of which seems fairly to be stated in plaintiff's brief. Point I reads as follows: As to the findings of fact made by the court it is sufficient to say that the court's specific findings of fact are supported by sufficient evidence of a substantial nature, and are therefore, for the purpose of review, the facts in the case. The findings of fact are a sufficient basis for the conclusions of law and resulting judgment. It serves no good purpose to set forth herein the court's findings and conclusions, nor to review the evidence upon which the same are based, nor to consider the many propositions urged by counsel with respect thereto. We have, however, examined the entire record very carefully, concluding as above stated. As to the rejected requests of the plaintiffs, it is sufficient to say that the court could not make those findings of fact nor conclusions of law because they would be inconsistent with the findings and conclusions which the court did make upon the facts adduced at the trial. See, Bezemek v. Balduini, 28 N.M. 124, 207 P. 330. As to request No. 10, we believe the evidence would support this finding of fact. However, we do not see how it is material in this case. If error was committed, it was harmless. Point II reads as follows: *366 Under sections 5 and 6 of Chapter 156, supra, the mother's consent to adoption is an absolute requirement except in four specific situations in which the legislature has conferred upon the court the right, in its discretion, to dispense with consent. The findings of fact, heretofore discussed, affirmatively show that none of these four situations existed. Therefore the trial court acted properly in dismissing the petition for adoption. See, Onsrud v. Lehman, 56 N.M. 289, 243 P.2d 600. The cases relied upon by plaintiffs are not in point. The foregoing disposition of this case makes unnecessary a discussion of plaintiffs' remaining points. The judgment is affirmed, and It Is So Ordered. McGHEE, C. J., and SADLER, COMPTON and SEYMOUR, JJ., concur.