Th is m e mor and um o pin ion

wa s n ot s e le c te d f

or pu bli c a tio n in

the Ne w M e xico Ap pe llate Re po rt s. Please see Rule 12-405 NMRA for r estrictions on the ci t at i o n of unpublished memora ndum op ini on s. Ple a se a lso no te that thi s e le c tr on ic me mor and um op ini on may

c on ta in computer- g ener ated e rror s or other de viations f rom the officia l pa

per version filed by the Court of Appea ls and does not include the f iling date

.

1 IN TH E COURT OF APPEALS O F THE ST ATE OF NEW MEXICO

2 ERIC CH ILDE RS , 3 Petitioner-Appellee,

4 v

. N O. 34, 311

5 DEA ND RACH ILDE RS , 6 Respondent -Appellee,

7 an d

8 RIC HAR

D and MA RTH A T EAKELL , 9 Ph y sic al Cu sto dians- A ppe llants , 10 an d

11 GAR Y C HILDE RS , 12 Intervenor-Appellee.

13 AP PE AL FR OM T HE D ISTRICT C OUR T OF CU RR Y C OUN TY 14 D avi d P
. R ee b, Jr
. , D ist ri ctJu dg e
15 Er ic Childers 16 Po rta le s, NMTh is m e mor and um o pin ion

wa s n ot s e le c te d f

or pu bli c a tio n in

the Ne w M e xico Ap pe llate Re po rt s. Please see Rule 12-405 NMRA for r estrictions on the ci t at i o n of unpublished memora ndum op ini on s. Ple a se a lso no te that thi s e le c tr on ic me mor and um op ini on may

c on ta in computer- g ener ated e rror s or other de viations f rom the officia l pa

per version filed by the Court of Appea ls and does not include the f iling date

.

2 1 Pro Se Petitioner-Appellee

2 De andra Childers 3 Cl ov is , NM

4 Pro Se Respondent-Appellee 5 Truji ll o Do dd , Torre s, O’Brie n, Sa nc he z, LLC 6 D onna T ru j ill o D odd 7 Alb uq ue rq ue , NM

8 fo r Ph y sic al Cu sto dians- A ppe llants
9 Harm on, Bar

nett & Morris, P. C. 10 Ja re d M or

ri s 11 Cl ov is , NM

12 for Inter

venor-Appellee

13 MEM ORA ND UM OP INION

14 WECH SLER , Jud ge.
15 { 1} A ppe llants Ri ch ar d a nd M ar tha T ea ke ll (M at er

na l G randpare nts ) ap pe al f ro m 1 6 the dis tr i c tc o u rt ’ s r

u l i n g t h a tap p o i n t s t h e m

a s t h e c h i l d ’ s k i n s h i p g u a r d i a n s , a nd 17 al low s Appe lle e- In te rv en or G ar y Ch ild er s ( Pa te rn al G randpare nt) vis ita tio n r igh ts. 18 [RP 292] O ur

not ic e pr opos ed

to af fi rm , a nd M at erna l G randpare nts f ile d a 19 m em or an dum

in oppo sit ion

. [ Ct

. A pp. Fi le , pin k c lip ] 20 { 2} In their docketing st atem ent, Ma ternal G randparents raised issues (A) -(E ), 21 w hic h our not ic e pr opos ed to sum m ar ily af fi rm

. I n th ei r m em or an dum in oppo sit ion , 22 Maternal G randparents do not dispu te our notice’ s propos ed resolution of issues (A) ,Th is m e mor and um o pin ion

wa s n ot s e le c te d f

or pu bli c a tio n in

the Ne w M e xico Ap pe llate Re po rt s. Please see Rule 12-405 NMRA for r estrictions on the ci t at i o n of unpublished memora ndum op ini on s. Ple a se a lso no te that thi s e le c tr on ic me mor and um op ini on may

c on ta in computer- g ener ated e rror s or other de viations f rom the officia l pa

per version filed by the Court of Appea ls and does not include the f iling date

.

3 1 (C), and (D ). [MIO 1] Thus, for the s ame re asons detailed in our notice, w e af firm 2 the se iss ue s. 3 { 3} W ith regard to issue (B), Maternal G randparents continu e to argue that “ there 4 w as in ad eq ua te not ic e

. . . to pr oc ee d onI nte rv en er ’ s ( sic ) [P at er na l G randpare nt] 5 issues.” [MI O 2; D S 4] In particul ar , M at ernal G randparents assert that neither 6 Pe tit ion er (F athe r) an d Re spon de nt (M oth er ) nor the m se lve s w er e pr ovi de d a de qua te 7 not ic e of

the guard ia nshi p m at ters that w er e ad dr es se d a t t he S ep te m be r 19, 201 4 8 h ea ri n g

. [M IO 2 , 3 ] See generally Sta te ex re l. C hildr en, Youth & Fam ilies Dep’t v

. 9 Maf in M. , 200 3- N MS C- 015, ¶ 17, 133 N

. M. 827 , 70 P.3 d 1266 ( “ T he que sti on o f 10 whether an indiv idual w as affor ded due process is a question of lawthat we review 11 de no vo .”). 12 { 4} A s fo r an y as se rt ed ina de qua te not ic e to Fa the r an d Mothe r of the guard ia nshi p 13 m at te r ad dr es se d a t t he Sep te m be r 19 , 20 1 4 h e a r i n g , as we st at ed in ou r no ti ce, we 14 know of no au tho ri ty , an d Ma te rn al G randpare nts ha ve pr ovi de d us w ith none , f or the 15 pr opos iti on tha t M at er na l G randpare nts ha ve standi ng t o r ai se ar gum en ts on be ha lf 16 of pa ren ts

. Se e gen er all

y In re A dopt ion of

D oe , 1984 -N MS C- 024, ¶ 2, 100 N

. M. 764 , 17 676 P. 2d 1329 (s ta tin g th at w he re apa rty

c ite s no auth or ity

to supp ort a n a rg um en t, 18 we m ay

assum e no such autho rity exis t s ); se e als o K

im bre ll v. Ki m bre ll , 201 4- 19 N MS C- 027, ¶

¶ 18- 19, 331 P

. 3d 9 15 ( re co gni zi ng tha t a pa re nt in a c ust ody dis put e 20 doe s no t ha ve standi ng t o su e on b eh al f of ac hil d)

. W e not e too th at , a lt hough th is 21 case began w ith a petition for legal separ ation betwee n Father and Moth er, the district 22 co urt ha d auth or ity to co nsi de r the gua rd ia nshi p m at te r tha t ar ose in the co ur se of the 23 pr oc ee din gs r el at ing to the pe tit ionf or le ga l se pa ra tio n. Se e Ly ndoe v

. D

. R

. H ort on, 24 Inc. , 2012-NMC A- 103, ¶ 12, 287 P. 3d 35 7 (p ro v i d ing th at our district courts “ are 25 co urts o f ge ne ra l j ur isd ic tio n ha vin g th e pow er to he ar al l m at te rs not ex ce pte d by the 26 constitu tion and those m atters confer red by law ”). 27 { 5} W e further

continu e to disagree w ith Maternal G randparents’ argum ent that 28 the y w er e not a ff or de d a de qua te not ic e of

the m at te rs to be ad dr es se d at the he ar ing

. 29 A s di sc uss ed

in our not ic e, w hil e thi s c as e be ga n a s ape tit ionf or le ga l se pa ra tio n 30 be tw ee n F athe r an d M oth er [ RP 1] , the dis tr ic t co urt de te rm ine d th at ne ith er pa re nt 31 co uld pr ovi de asa fe hom e fo r the ch ild an d aw ar de d te m por ar y sol e care an d c ont ro l 32 to M at er

na l G randpare nts

. [ RP 28- 29] Pa te rn al G randpare nt i nte rv en ed [ RP 89, 143 , 33 288] and approxim ately seven m onth s before the Septem ber 19, 2014 hearing, filedTh is m e mor and um o pin ion

wa s n ot s e le c te d f

or pu bli c a tio n in

the Ne w M e xico Ap pe llate Re po rt s. Please see Rule 12-405 NMRA for r estrictions on the ci t at i o n of unpublished memora ndum op ini on s. Ple a se a lso no te that thi s e le c tr on ic me mor and um op ini on may

c on ta in computer- g ener ated e rror s or other de viations f rom the officia l pa

per version filed by the Court of Appea ls and does not include the f iling date

.

4 1 a m oti on t o m odi fy the te m por ar y c ust ody or de r in f

av or of Ma te rn al G randpare nts 2 to instead give P aternal Gr andparent custody or, at a m inim um , to al l o w P at ernal 3 G randpare nt vis ita tio n ri ght s. [RP 84] In tur n, Ma te rn al G randpare nts , w ho als o 4 intervened [RP 256, 288] , disputed any visitatio n rights b eing extended to Pater nal 5 G randf athe r an d f

ile d a co unt er m oti on to be ap poi nte d a s ki nshi p gu ar dians. [ RP 98, 6 101] T he he ar ing to ad dr es s th e dis put e be tw ee n th e gr an dpa re nts w as he ld o n 7 Se pte m be r 19, 201 4. [ RP 165 , 254 , 263, 268 , 269 ] G ive n th at a ll of the gr an dpa re nts 8 ha d f ile d m oti ons re la tin g to vis ita tio n a nd c ust ody of the c hild, a nd tha t a

he ar ing 9 ha d be ensc he dul ed

to ad dr e s s the se m at te rs , w e co nc lud e tha t M at er na l G randpare nts 1 0 w e r e a f

f o r d e da d e q u a t e n o t i c e

. We a f f i r m. 11 { 6} W ith r eg ar d to iss ue (E), Mater na l G randpare nts c ont inu e to a sse rt tha t t he 12 district court “ did no t enter a visitatio n plan in th e best interests of the child.” [ MIO 13 3; D S 5] A ga in, oth er than gene ra lly av er tha t er ro r oc cu rr ed an d th at

the vis ita tio n 14 plan “ is n ot a

ppr opr ia te f

or a4 y ear old

c hil d” [ MI O 3] , Ma te rn al G randpare nts ha ve 15 fai le d t o a rti cu la te wit h s pe ci fic it y th e ba si s of

th ei r arg um en t. See generally State v. 16 A rago n , 199 9- N MC A -0 60, ¶ 10, 127 N

. M. 393 , 981 P

. 2d 1 211 (s ta tin g th at the re is 17 a pr es um

pti on o f co rr ec tne ss in t he r uli ngs or de ci sio ns o f the dis tr ic t c ourt a nd the 18 p ar t y claim ing error bear s the burden of sho wing such error) ; H e a dl e y v

. M o rgan 19 M gm t. Co rp. , 200 5- N MC A -0 45, ¶ 15, 137 N

. M. 339 , 110 P

. 3d 1076 ( sta tin g th at thi s 20 Co urt ha s no dut y to re vie w ina de qua te ly de ve lop ed

a rg um en ts)

. P er ce ivi ng n o e rr or 21 orab us e o f di sc ret io n, we af fir m

. 22 { 7} T o co nc lud e, fo r the re as ons ad dr es se d ab ove an d ex te nsi ve ly de ta ile d inour 23 no ti ce, we aff

irm. 24 { 8} IT IS S O ORDERE D.

25

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ __ __ ________ 26 JA M ES J. WE C HS LE R , Ju dg eTh is m e mor and um o pin ion

wa s n ot s e le c te d f

or pu bli c a tio n in

the Ne w M e xico Ap pe llate Re po rt s. Please see Rule 12-405 NMRA for r estrictions on the ci t at i o n of unpublished memora ndum op ini on s. Ple a se a lso no te that thi s e le c tr on ic me mor and um op ini on may

c on ta in computer- g ener ated e rror s or other de viations f rom the officia l pa

per version filed by the Court of Appea ls and does not include the f iling date

.

5 1 WE CO NCUR:

2

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ 3 M IC HA EL E. V IG IL , C hi ef Ju dg e

4

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ 5 C Y N TH IA A
. F R

Y , Ju dg e