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

2 O pin ionN um

be r: ___ ____ ____ ____ 3 Fi lin g D at e: Marc h 2, 201 7 4 N O. 34, 572 5 ROYNE AL HOU GH, 6 Petitioner-Appellee, 7 v

. 8 SU MM ER LYN NE BRO OKS, 9 Re spon de nt- Appe llant. 10 AP PE AL FR OM T HE D ISTRICT C OUR T OF LINC OLN CO UN TY 11 Jam es Wa ylo n C ou nt s, D ist ri ctJu dg e 12 Freda How ard McS wane, P .C. 13 Fr ed a H ow ar d M cS w an e 14 Ruidos o, N M 15 for Appellee 16 W ill ia m

N

. G ri ff in 17 Ruidos o, N M 18 fo r Appe llant1 OPIN ION

2 VA NZ I, C hief Jud ge. 3 { 1} Su m

m er L ynne Br ooks (M oth er ) an d her es tr an ge d husband, Ro y N ea l H ough 4 (F athe r) , e nte re d in to a sti pul at ed

int er im or de r tha t al low ed

Mo the r to r el oc at e w ith 5 the ir f our c hil dr enf

ro m Ru ido so, N ew Me xic o to P hoe nix , A ri zo na . Appr oxi m at el y 6 ei ght m onths l at er , the dis tr ic t co urt or de re d th at the c hil dr enm ove ba ck

to Ru ido so 7 to live with Father during the school y ear. On a ppeal, Mother argues that the district 8 co urt e rr ed

by ( 1) dr as tic al ly

c ha ngi ng the pr im ar

y c u s t o d i a l ar

r an g e m en t w ith out

f ir st 9 fi ndi ng tha t a

sub stanti al a nd m at er ia l c ha nge in ci rc um stanc es ha d oc curr ed , a nd ( 2) 1 0 n o tm ak i n g s p ec i fi c fi n d i n g s t h at t h e ch an g e w as i n t h e c h i l d re n ’s b es ti n t er es t s . We 11 hol d th at

the dis tr ic t c ourt a

buse d it s di sc re tio n by

not f ind ing “ a subs tanti al a nd 12 m at er ia l c ha nge in ci rc um stanc es ” be fo re c ha ngi ng the e x i s t i n g c ust ody a rr an ge m en t, 13 as req ui red by the New Mex ic o J o i n t C u s t od y Sta tu te , NMSA 19 78 , § 4 0- 4- 9.1 (A) 14 (1 999)

. W e furthe r hol d that the dis tr ic t cour t abus ed its dis cr et ionby

not c ondu ct ing 15 a best interests analy sis and byfailing to consi der any of the statu t o ri ly

m andated 16 fa ct or s, unde r N MS A 197 8, S ec tio n 40 -4 -9 (A ) (1 977) a nd S ec tio n 40 -4 -9

. 1( B) , a nd 17 that the district c ourt’ s custody determ ination wa s not supported b y s u b s tantial 18 evidence. A ccordingly , w e re verse.2

1 BACKGRO UND 2 { 2} Although their m arria ge certificate wa s never filed, M other and Father m arrie d 3 in October 1999 and liv ed together with their four c hildren in their fam ily residence 4 in Ruido so. Mother is a sch ool teacher , and Father is a wild-land firef ighter em ploy ed 5 by the U.S. Fore st Serv ic e. 6 { 3} The c oupl e’ s relationship deteriorat ed after a Mar ch 2012 incident in which 7 Fa the r kic ke d his e lde st d au ght er , A

. H

. , a nd b ro ke he r le g. F athe r w as c ha rg ed w ith 8 child abuse and b ribery of a w itness for en co u ra g ing A.H . to lie a bout what had 9 happened. Father

pleaded no cont est and rece ived a conditio nal discharge. H e w as 10 pla ce d on th ree y ears of pr oba tio n and w as r equir ed to unde rg o c ouns el ing

. T he 11 pr oba tio n a gr ee m en t st at ed tha t F athe r w oul d “ not a sso ci at e with a ny

pe rs on 12 ide nti fi ed

by [ his p] ro ba tio n/[ p] ar ole [o ] ff ic er as be ing de tr im en ta l t o [ his p] ro ba tio n 13 su pe rv is io n,” in cl ud in g a ny vic ti m or wi tn es s of hi s cri m es . F at he r ad m it te d th atA.H. 14 wa s a victim

of his cr im es. Af

ter the charges w ere filed, C hildren, Y outh and Fam ilies 15 D ep ar tm en t ( CY FD ) an d F athe r’ s pr oba tio n of fi ce r re que ste d th at

F athe r le av e the 16 fam ily

r es ide nc e fo r six m onths, af te r w hic h he had lim ite d cont ac t wi th the c hil dr en . 17 A lth oughF athe r did

ha ve pho ne c al ls w ith the ch ildre n, the y w er e int er m itt en t as a 18 result of his job, which often took him out of cell phon e service.3

1 { 4} Fat he r di d n ot see or t al k t o A.H. fo r atlea st two y ears aft er t he in ci de nt . A.H. 2 is a spe ci al ne ed s ch ild , w ho ha d di ff ic ult ie s insc hool a ft er

the c hil d a

buse e pis ode 3 and was r em oved from school by Mother to be hom e-schooled for a period of tim e. 4 A

. H

. ha d be ene va lua te d a fter th e child abuse inc ide nt and w as dia gnos ed w ith 5 ch il dh oo d s ch iz op hr en ia

. 6 { 5} I n M a r c h 2 0 1 4 , F a t h e r f i l e dap e t i t i o n t o d e t e rmi n e p a t e rn i t y, c u s t o d y, 7 vis ita tio n, a nd ch ild supp ort ( the pe tit ion ). S pe ci fi ca lly , F athe r soug ht j oin t l eg al a nd 8 phy sical custodyof the chi ldren and an order for child sup port pursuan t to the New 9 Mexico Child Supp ort Guidelines. Mother did not dispu te p aternity and agreed that 10 Fa th er sh ou ld be gr an te d le ga l or phy sic al c ust ody

but state d th at

he sho uld

not be 11 gr an te d un supe rv ise d vi sit at ionunt il he c om ple te d hi s pr oba tio n and c ouns el ing

. 12 Mothe r al so d id n ot d en y tha t c hil d su

ppor t sh oul d be a w ar de d. 13 { 6} T w o w ee ks a ft er Fa the r fi le d the pe tit ion an d bef or e Mothe r ha d an op portun ity 14 to f ile he r an sw er , F athe r’ s pare nts ( G randpare nts ) fi le d am oti on t o in te rv en e. T he 15 m oti on s ough t, a m ong oth er thi ngs, to al lowG randpare nts , w ho w er e re sid en ts o f 16 Te nnessee, to assist in m aking decisio ns about the children because Fa ther w as 17 “ un ab le to pro pe rly care fo r th e m in orch il dr en alo ne b a s e d o n hi s emplo ym en t.” 18 Mother objec ted to the m otion to intervene arguing lack o f jurisdiction and other legal 19 gr ound s. T he dis tr ic t c ourt ul tim at el y de nie d G randpare nts ’ m oti on in Oc tob er 201 4.4

1 { 7} Fa the r an d M oth er e nte re d in to a joint st ipu la te d c ust ody , vis ita tio n, a nd 2 supp ort a gr ee m en t and, on June 3, 2014 , the dis tr ic t c ourt e nte re d asti pul at ed int er im 3 or de r re fl ec tin g th e pa rt ie s’ a gr ee m en t. T he sti pul at ed int er im or de r pr ovi de d, in 4 re le va nt p ar

t: 5 2. [M oth er ] , upo n provi din g pr oof of e m plo ym en t [ fo r a te ac hin g 6 posi tio n] in Ph oe nix , A ri zo na , sha ll be a llo w ed to re loc at e to 7 Ph oe nix , A ri zo naw iththe m ino r ch ildre n. 8 3. [F athe r] sha ll ha ve a tw o[ -] w ee k pe ri od of re spon sib ili ty w ith the 9 m ino r ch ildre n for tw o . . . w ee ks af te r the e nd o f the 201 3- 2014 10 sc hool y ear in R uid oso, N ewMe xic o. S ai d pe ri od o f 11 res po ns ib il it y s h a ll tak e p la ce at th e ch il dr en ’s res id en ce[.] . . . 12 Su chsup er vis ed vis ita tio n sh al l be f

ro m Jul y 6, 201 4 th ro ugh Jul y 13 20, 201 4. 14 4. [Father ’ s] paren t s shall supervise this visitatio n by rem aining at 15 the r es ide nc e w ith[ Fa the r] a nd the m ino r ch ildre n. 16 5. Af

ter the m i n o r ch i l d re n h av e relocated to Phoenix, Ar izona, 17 [F athe r] sha ll be a llo w ed night ly p hone c al ls w iththe m ino r 18 ch il dr en an d Sk y pe vi si ts wit h th e m in or ch il dr en atlea st two

. . . 19 tim es pe r w ee k. 2 0 6

. U nt i l f

u rt h e r [ o ] r d e r o f t h i s [ c ] our t, [ Fa the r] sha ll pa y ch ild 21 supp ort t o [ Mothe r] in the a m ount of $94 9. 81. 22 { 8} Inthe sum

m er of 201 4, Mothe r obta ine d a tea ch ing posi tio n a t a pr iva te sc hool 23 in P hoe nix , A ri zo na , an d pur suant to the sti pul at ed int er im or de r, r el oc at ed w iththe 24 ch ildre n to P hoe nix

. T hr ee of the c hil dr ena tte nde d th e pr iva te sc hool a s abe ne fi t of 25 Mo th er’s em

pl oym en t, an d A.H. at te nd eda sp eci al sch oo l.5

1 { 9} Shortly

thereaf ter, Father filed a m otion to show cause, alleging th at he had 2 “ pla ce d apho ne c al l e ve ry nig ht” to the c hil dr ensin ce Jul y 20, 201 4, a s pe rm itt ed

by 3 the stipu lated interim

order, but had no t b ee n ab le to reac h the children. Mother 4 de nie d th at

she m iss ed

m ult ipl e phon e ca lls f

ro m F athe r, a nd f

ile d ac ount er

m oti on, 5 alleging th at Father “ has underpaid, or failed to pay , child supp ort each m onth since 6 June[] 2014 .” Ac cording to Father, he paid utility bills on the fam ily residence that 7 Moth er ha d lef

t unpa id and h ad

giv enMo the r ane xtr a ch ild sup port paym en t i n 8 Marc h 20 14. T he r ec or d do es not indic at e w he the r the dis tr ic t c ourt r ule d onthi s 9 m atter. 10 { 10} Si x m onths a ft er the sti pul at ed int er im or de r w as en te re d, the dis tr ic t co urt he ld 11 a ch ild

c ust ody he ar ing

. Bo th F athe r an d Mothe r te sti fi ed

. Fa the r sa id tha t he w as in 12 favor of the m ove w he n it

oc curr ed a nd a gr ee d th at

the re w er e am

ple doc tor s in 13 Ar izona that wer e better suited to address A. H. ’ s needs. In a dditi on, Father knew that 14 one of his sons had struggl ed in Ruido so pub lic schools because of the son’ s speech 15 difficulties. N evertheless, Father no longer wanted the children to reside in Arizona. 16 H e adm itt ed

tha t he “ did

not ke ep up w ith an y of the kid s w hil e the y w er e in s ch ool ” 17 in R ui do so a nd f

ur t he r a c kn ow l e dg e d tha t he ha d no r e a so n t o be l i e ve t he children 18 were n ot do in g wel l i n Ari zo na .6

1 { 11} Mothe r te sti fie d th at the c hil dr enw er e ha

ppy a nd d oin g w el l i n th e Ph oe nix 2 pr iva te sc hool , a nd the c hil d w ithspe ec h issue s r ec ei ve d sp ec ia liz ed sup port f or his 3 dis ab ili ty

. F urthe rm or e, Mo the r sa id tha t A

. H

. , w ho h ad str uggl ed aft er the 201 2 4 incident with Father, wa s doin g better in Phoeni x an d wa s slated to get special 5 tr ea tm en t w he re she w oul d at te nd supp ort se ssi ons an d w he re apsy ch ia tr ist a nd c as e 6 m an ag er wo ul d v is it he r in th e h om e. 7 { 12} T es tim ony at the he ar ing es ta bli she d tha t, pr ior to the tim e he w as r equir ed to 8 le av e the f

am ily hom e, F at

he r ha d un de rt ak ennum er ous re m ode lin g pr oj ec ts i n th e 9 Ru ido so r es ide nc e tha t r em ai ne d un fi nis he d w he n he le ft

. F athe r adm itt ed tha t w hil e 10 he lived there, he had punched ho l es i n t h e walls. A ccording to Moth er, she had 11 d i fficulti es with m ice com ing in through one of the are as involv ing Father’s 12 unf ini she d pr oj ec ts. Mothe r ha d ne ith er the m one y nor the ski lls to m ak e re pa ir s or 1 3 f i n i s h t h e p r o

j e c t s o n c e F a t h e r

w a s o u t o f t h e h o u s e , n o r d i d s h e a l l o w F a t h e r t o c o me 14 ba ck to m ak e re pa ir s. Mothe r sta te d th at she did not w an t F athe r in the hom e be ca use 1 5 h e w a s a g g r e s s i v e a n dc o u l d n o tc o n t r o l h i s t e mp e r . M o r e o v e r , h a v i n g F a t h e r c o me 16 int o th e hom e to m ak e re pa ir s ne ve r pa nne d ou t be ca use of F athe r’ s w ork sc he dul e 17 an d be ca

use A

. H

. w as in the hom e. T he r es ult w as tha t, a t the ti m e of

F athe r’ s Ju ly 18 2014 vis ita tio n pe rio d, w hic h to ok p la ce in the f am ily ’ s R

uid oso re sid en ce , the7

1 co ndi tio n of

the h om e w as “ hor

ri ble

. ” A cc or din g to F athe r, the hou se sm el le d of 2 ur in e, was fil th y , and th ere wer e m ic e fec es th ro ug ho ut th e p rem is es . 3 { 13} W ithr es pe ct

to G randpare nts , pr ior

to the tw o- w ee k visit at ion pe ri od in Ju ly 4 2014 , it

ha d be ense ve n y ears sin ce G randpare nts ha d in te ra ct ed w itha ny of the 5 c hi l dr e n, a nd t he y ha d ne ve r m e t t he t w o y oung e r c hi l dr e n. T he de c i si on t o cut off 6 contact betwee n Grandparents and the children had been a m utual decision betwee n 7 Father and Moth er. Notw ithstand ing th at t h ey d i d not k now the children, F ather 8 te sti fi ed tha t Gr an dpare nts w oul d m ove to N ew Me xic o f ro m T en ne sse e to h el p hi m 9 with the children if he wa s granted custod y during th e school y ear. Father’ s m other 10 also testified to the sam e ef fect. Ther e is no evidence i n the record indicating whether 11 G randpare nts a ct

ua lly m ove d to N ewMe xic o. 12 { 14} At a

De cem ber 2014 hearing, the district court entered an order requiring that 13 the c hil dr en spe nd Ch ri stm as br eak w ith Fa the r. T he e xc ha nge w as to ta ke pla ce in 14 Lordsburg, N ewMexico on Dec em ber 20, 2014, and the children wer e to be returned 15 to Mother in Lordsburg on January 3, 2015. A .H . d i d not arrive in Lordsburg as 16 required by

the order. Father filed a m otion to show cause, alleging that Mother had 17 re fu se d to br ing A

. H

. f or Ch ri stm as br eak and tha t, the re fo re , Mo the r shou ld be he ld 18 in contem

pt. Mother re spon ded that she “ did everything within her p ower to com pel 19 [A .H .] to go” and that A.H . her self had ref used to go to Lo rd sburg for the holid ay8

1 ex ch an ge . Mo the r re ite ra te d th at A

. H

. ha d be en“ gr av el y

inj ur ed ” by

F athe r, tha t sh e 2 had been diagno sed with schizophr e ni a and p os ttr a um at i c s tr e ss d isorder (PT SD ), that 3 Fat he r was u n d e r a p ro ba ti on ord er n otto ha ve co nt act wit h A.H., an d t ha t A.H. 4 w an te d “ anaudi en ce w iththe [ j ] udge in ch am

be rs to ex pr es s he r de sir es [ re ga rd ing ] 5 vis ita tio n w ith[ Fa the r]

. ” Mor eo ve r, A

. H

. ’ s c ouns el or w as de ve lop ing atr ea tm en t 6 plan, re com

m ending that A. H. and Father develop their r el at i o n ship in “ calculated 7 stages.” 8 { 15} A t a

sho w c au se he ar ing on Ma rc h 30 , 201 5, A

. H

. te sti fi ed tha t sh e did

not 9 want to go to Lordsburg because Fa ther’ s phy sically abusive behavio r m ade her f eel 10 unsa fe

. S he a lso sa id th at one of he r co unse lor ’ s ha d de ve lop ed aplan f or he r in 11 which she w ould establish a relationship with Father at her own pace. A. H. stated that 12 the day

of the holiday

exchange, M other tried to m ak e her go, but she had lo cked 13 he rs el f in h er

r oom a nd r ef use d to c om e out. N otw ith standi ng A

. H

. ’ s te sti m ony a nd 14 tha t i t ha d pr ev iou sly r equir ed vis ita tio n w iththe c hil dr ento be sup er vis ed , the 15 district court held Moth er in contem pt , s t at ing th at she did not do “ what w as 1 6 n ec es s ar y t o ca rr y o u t t h e [d i s t ri ct co u rt ’s ] o rd er ” an d o rd er ed Mo t h ert o p ay Fa t h er ’s 17 at tor ne y f ee s. 18 { 16} O n M ar ch6, 201 5, the dis tr ic t cour t m em or ia liz ed its Ja nuary 30, 2015 m inu te 19 order in a court-order ed parenting plan (the paren t i n g p lan). The par enting p lan9

1 granted j oint legal custo dy to Father and Moth er of a ll the m inor children, w ith Father 2 be ing the pr im ar

y phy sic al c ust odi an . Be gin nin g w ith the 2015 -2 016 sc hool y ear, the 3 ch ildre n w oul d r es ide w ithF athe r in R uid oso “ fr om

one w ee k be fo re the start of 4 sc hool thr oughone w ee k f oll ow ing the e nd o f the sc hool y ear. ” T his or de r inv ar ia bly 5 conflicted with Father ’ s probation ary status as it related to A. H. , as his prob ation was 6 no t sc he dul ed

to en d un til D ec em

be r 2015

. T he pare nti ng p lan pr ovi de d th at the 7 “ children shall spend th e sum m er bre ak with [Mother] com m encing one week af

ter 8 the en do f

. . . s c h o o l t h r o u g h o n e w e e kb e f o r e t h e b e g i n n i n g o f

s c h o o l

. ” A lth ough 9 t h e d i s tr i c tc o u rt s t a t e d t h a t i tw a s i n t h e b e s ti n t e r e s t s o f t h e c h i l d r e n t o h a v e “a 10 signi ficant re lationsh ip with . .

. [F] ather and [G randparents,] ” the pare nting plan does 11 not pr ovi de a be st int er es ts ana ly sis

. N or doe s it a ddr es s any

statut or y f ac tor s a s a 12 ba sis fo r the cu sto dy de te rm ina tio n. In ste ad , the pa re nti ng pla n sim ply sta te d that

the 1 3 c h i l d r e n ’s r e l a t i o n s h i p w i t h F a t h e r “c a n n o tb e f

o s t e r e d i f t h e c h i l d r e n o n l y s e e [ h i m] 14 in the sum

m er be ca use his w ork re qui re s hi m to be a w ay

f ro m hom e fo r sig nif

ic an t 15 pe ri ods of

ti m e in t he sum m er due to fi re se as on. ” A nd, “ [M oth er ] c anbe st m ai nta in 16 her re lationsh ip with the children during the summ er m o n t h s s i n ce sh e is a tea cher 17 an d w ill ha ve sum

m er s of f. ” T he pare nti ng p lan pr ovi de d no gui da nc e fo r tr an sit ion 18 fro m Mo th er’s car e to Fat he r, no r di d itad dr es s an y pa rti cu la rs wit h re sp ect to A.H.10

1 { 17} Insum

f or e as e of r ef er en ce , the pe rt ine nt and m at er ia l e ve nts a nd d at es se t ou t 2 ab ove start ed

in Marc h 20 12. F athe r ha d li m ite d c ont ac t w iththe c hil dr enf ro m about 3 Marc h 20 12 u nti l a

bout at le as t M ar ch201 4 w he n he f ile d hi s pe tit iona nd l ike ly unt il 4 Jun e 3 2 0 1 4 , w h i c h w o u l dh a v e b e e n o v e r t w o y e a r s . M o t h e r

r e l o c a t e dt o P h o e nix 5 with the children around m id-summ er 2014 , pursuant to the stipu lated interim order. 6 Father had a

two-w eek visitation with the children, ex cept A. H. , in July 2014 . I n 7 De cem ber 2014 , following a Septem ber m otion for an order to show c ause, the c ourt 8 or de re d vi sit at ionw ithF athe r ove r Ch ri stm as br eak in D ec em be r 2014

. T he re w as a 9 Ja nuary

30, 201 5 m inu te -o rd er ed pare nti ng p la n, m em or ia liz ed on M ar ch6, 201 5, 10 or de ri ng j oin t l eg al c ust ody w ith Fa the r ha vin g pr im ar y phy sic al cu sto dy of

a ll of the 11 ch ildre n. A sho w c ause he ari ng occurr ed on M ar ch30, 201 5. W e nowtur n to the 12 ar gum en ts o n a

ppe al

. 13 DISC US SION 14 Stand ard of R eview 15 { 18} W e re vie w adis tr ic t c ourt’ s c hil d cu st od y de te rm ina tio n f

or abuse of 16 dis cr et ion , a nd w e w ill upho ld the dis tr ic t c ourt’ s f ind ing s if the y a re sup porte d by 17 su bs ta nt ia l ev id en ce. G rant v . Cu m ifo rd , 200 5- N MC A -0 58, ¶ 13, 137 N

. M. 485 , 112 18 P. 3d 1 142. “ A n a

buse of dis cr et io n occurs w he n ar uli ng i s c le ar ly

c ontrary to the 19 logical conclus ions d em anded by the fac ts and circum stances of the case. ” Id

.11

1 (i nte rn al quo ta tio n m ar ks and c ita tio n om itt ed )

. “ S u b s t an t i a l e vid en ce is suc h r el ev an t 2 evidence that a reasonable m ind would find adequate to supp ort a conclusion.” Sta te 3 exre l. King v. B & B I nv . G rp. , 2014-NMS C-024, ¶ 12, 329 P.3d 658 (internal 4 quot at ionm ar

ks and c ita tio n om itt ed ). I n a ddi tio n, the f ai lur e of adis tr ic t c ourt t o 5 ap ply the ap pli ca

ble sta tut or

y gui de lin es to or de r a ch an ge of c ust ody w ill c onst itu te 6 an ab us e o f di sc ret io n. St at e ex r el . Chi ld re n, Yo ut h & Fami li es Dep’ t v. Mi ch el le B. , 7 2001 -N MC A -0 71, ¶

27, 130 N

. M. 781 , 32 P

. 3d 7 90. 8 Th e Di s trict Cour t A bused Its Discr etion by N ot F inding a Su bstantial and 9 Mater ial Change in Circ um stances 10 { 19} Mothe r’ s fi rs t ar gum en t on ap pe al is tha t the dis tr ic t c ourt “ er re d indr as tic al ly 11 ch an gin g th e pr im ar

y cu sto dia l ar

range m en t, re qui ri ng the c hil dr ento m ove ba ck to 12 Ruidos o from

Phoenix[.] ” In particular , Mother contends that the district court erred 13 by not m ak ing a fin di ng tha t the re w as asub stanti al a nd m at er ia l c ha nge in 14 ci rc um stanc es , a s r equir ed by S ec tio n 40 -4 -9

. 1( A ), j ust if y ing am odi fi ca tio n of

the 15 sti pul at ed

int er im or de r. Fa the r re spon ds tha t the sti pul at ed int er im or de r w as not a 16 fi na l or de r an d th at , the re fo re , de part ur e fr om or m odi fi ca tio n of

the or de r did

not 17 re qui re a show ing of asub stanti al a nd m at er ia l c ha nge in ci rc um stanc es . F or the 18 reasons that follow, w e agre e w ith Moth er. 19 { 20} Pursuant to NMSA1978 , S ection 40-4-7(G) (1997), “ [t] he court m ay m odify 20 an d c ha nge a ny

or de r or

a gr eem en t m erg ed

int o an or de r in r es pe ct to the12

1 guardianshi p, care, custody , m aint en an ce or education of the children whenever 2 ci rc um stanc es r en de r suc h ch an ge pr ope r. ” H ow ev er , suc h a m odi fi ca tio n or c ha nge 3 m ay oc cur “ onl y

upo n asho w ing of

a subs tanti al ch an ge in ci rc um stanc es sin ce the 4 prior order that af

fects the best inter ests of the children.” G rant , 200 5- N MC A -0 58, 5 ¶ 13 ( int er

na l quota tio n m ar

ks and c ita tio n om itt ed ). S ec tio n 40 -4 -9

. 1( A ) spe ci fi ca lly 6 sta te s, 7 Joi nt c ust ody

sha ll not be aw ar de d as a subst itu te fo r ane xis tin g c ust ody 8 ar

range m en t un le ss the re ha s be enasub stanti al a nd m at er ia l c ha nge in 9 circum stances since the entry of the prior custodyorder or dec ree, which 10 ch an ge a ff

ec ts the w el fare of

the c hil d su chtha t j oin t c ust ody is 11 pr es en tl y

in th e b es t i nt eres ts of t he ch il d. 12 { 21} The questi on of whether the above statute applies to the present situation is an 13 is su e o f st at ut or y c o n s t ru c t io n t ha t we re vi ew de no vo . Se e Sta te v . Sai z , 200 1- 14 N MC A -0 35, ¶

2, 130 N

. M. 333, 24 P

. 3d 3 65. I n e nga gin g instatut or y int er pr et at ion , 15 “ our pr im ar

y goa l is to giv e ef

fe ct to the int en t of

the [ L ] eg isl at

ur e[ , ] ” an d indoi ng 16 so, “ we look first to th e plain language of the statute.” Id

. 17 { 22} A s no te d a

bove , S ec tio n 40 -4 -9

. 1( A ) sta te s, “ Joi nt c ust ody sha ll not

be 18 aw ar de d as a subs tit

ute fo r an ex ist ing

c ust odyarr ange m en t unl es s th er e ha s be ena 19 subs tanti al a nd m at er ia l c ha nge in ci rc um stanc es . ” (E m pha sis a dde d. ) T he re is 20 noth ing in this section that indicates an existing custody arrangem ent m ust be based 21 on a f ina l or de r or en te re d af

te r a m er its he ar ing , a s F athe r co nte nds. I nde ed , no c as e13

1 ha s be enc ite d to us, nor ha s any be enf ound , tha t w oul d li m it the appl ic at ionof 2 Sect io n 4 0- 4- 9.1 (A) s ol el y to fin al ord ers . Se e In re A dopt ion ofD oe , 1984-NMS C3 024, ¶ 2, 100 N

. M. 764 , 676 P

. 2d 1 329 (s ta tin g th at w he re aparty

c ite s no auth or ity 4 to s uppo rt

a n arg um en t, w e m ay as sum e no suc h au tho ri ty e xis ts)

. T o th e co ntr ar

y , the 5 pla in l an gua ge of

the statut e re fe rs —w ith out li m ita tion— to any

“ ex ist ing c ust ody 6 ar ra n g emen t ” t h at i s i n s t i tu t ed b y co u rt “ o rd er o r d ec re e[ .]” Se ct i o n 4 0 -4 -9 .1 (A ). We 7 w ill not

de pa rt f ro m the c le ar m eanin g of the pla in langua ge of the statut e, w hic h by 8 its ter m s, encom

passes the stipu lated interim order beca

use the district court’ s order 9 crea ted an “ existing custodyar ra n g em ent.” Se e id. See ge ne ra ll y S ummer s v. N .M. 10 W ater Quality Contro l Comm ’n , 201 1- N MC A -0 97, ¶ 16, 150 N

. M

. 6 9 4, 265 P

. 3d 7 45 11 (o bse rv ing tha t, w he n co nsi de ri ng the pla in langua ge of the w or ds in a sta tut e, we 12 “ assum e tha tt he o r di nary m e a ni ng o f

t he w or ds e xp r e ss e s t he l e gi sl a t i ve p ur pose” 13 (in te rn al qu ot at io n m ark s an d c it at io n o m it te d) ). 14 { 23} U nde r the sti pul at ed int er im or de r, Mothe r w as to b e the sol e cu sto dian of the 15 ch il dr en by virt ue of h er rel oc at io n wi th th e ch il dr en to Ph oe ni x. See § 40 -4 -9

. 1( L )( 8) 16 (d ef ini ng “ sol e cu sto dy ” as “ an or de r of the co urt aw ar din g cust ody of a ch ild to one 17 pa re nt” ). T he sti pul at ed int er im or de r doe s no t m ak e an y pr ovi sio n f

or j oin t c ust ody 18 or f or F athe r’ s c ust ody

. F athe r w as on ly g ran ted “ supe rv ise d vi sit at ion ” fo r a tw o19 weekpe rio d o f ti m e. See § 4 0

- 4

- 9

. 1 ( L ) ( 9 ) ( “ ‘[ V ]i s i t a t i o n ’ me a n s ap e r i o do f t i me14

1 available to a noncusto dial parent, under a sole custody arrangem ent, during which 2 a child resides with or is under t h e ca re and control of the non custodi al parent. ”). 3 T he re fo re , the sti pul at ed int er im or de r cr ea te d a sol e cu sto dy ar range m en t, an d t he 4 district court’ s entry

of the Mar ch 2015 parent i n g plan granting Mother and Father 5 j oin t l e ga l c us t od

y , ne c e ss a r i l y r e qu i r e d a sh ow i ng of a “ su bs t a nt i a l a nd

m aterial 6 change in circum stances.” See § 40-4-9.1(A) (“ Joint custody shall not be aw arded as 7 a substit ute for an existing custo dy arr angem ent unless there has been a substanti al 8 and m aterial c hange in circum stances.”)

. 9 { 24} W e em

pha siz e tha t fa ct s, as al w ay s, a re im portant, a nd w e re ac h ou r de ci sio n 10 tod ay ba se d on the spe ci fi c and uni que ci rc um stanc es of thi s ca se . W e do n ot s ugge st 11 tha t a ll int er im

or de rs w ill re qui re asho w ing of a“ subs tanti al a nd m at er ia l c ha nge in 12 circum stances” but where , a s in the present case, the district court’ s order establishes 1 3 a d u ra b l e c u s t o d y ar ra n g emen twi t h s ub s t an t i al p ro v i s i o n s fo r t h e c h i l d re n ’s 14 re loc at ionw ithone pare nt o ut o f sta te a nd no ind ic at iontha t the c ust ody 15 de te rm ina tio n w ould be rev isi te d, a ny m odi fi ca tio n of

tha t or de r m

ust be 16 acco m

pa ni ed by a sh owi ng of a su bs ta nt ia l an d m at eri al ch an ge of c irc um st an ces . Cf

. 17 La ws on v . L aw

son , 48, 296, p. 5 ( L a. App. 2 C ir . 7 /2 4/ 13), 121 S o. 3d 7 69, 772 18 (explaining that, under the fa cts of the case, a “ j udgm ent [that] wa s design ated an 19 ‘ int er im

j udgm en t’

. . . w as af

ina l j udgm en t a s to e ve ry iss ue e xc ep t th e ch oi ce of15

1 sc hool f

or the ch ild ” bec au se the sti pul at ed int er im j udgm en t indic at ed tha t the onl y 2 m at te r tha t w oul d be r ev isi te d w oul d be the c hil d’ s sc hool ); Chandl er v. Ch a ndler , 3 48,891, pp. 5-6 (L a. App. 2 Cir. 12/1 3/13 ), 132 So. 3d 413, 417 (concluding that, an 4 int er im j udgm en t tha t w as c onse nte d to by both pa re nts “ w as a fi na l j udgm en t a s to 5 ev er y i s s u e c o n c e rn i n g c u s t o d y ” a n d t h a t i n o r d e r f o r t h e n o n d o m i c i l i a ry pa re nt t o 6 obt ai n a c ha ng e in c ust ody , she ha d “ the bur de n of sho w ing tha t the re ha d be ena 7 m aterial c hange in circum stances since the interim decre e w as entered”)

. 8 { 25} T he re is no thi ng i n th e sti pul at ed int er im or de r es ta

bli shi ng tha t the c ust ody 9 ar range m en t w as te m

por ar y or subj ec t to ch an ge . T he re w as no s et ti m e fr am e dur ing 10 which Mother’ s custod y of the children wa s to be reevaluated or f or which the order 11 w as se t t o e xpi re . I n c ontra st, the dis tr ic t c ourt’ s c hil d su ppor t or de r, w hic h w as a lso 12 co nta ine d in the sti pul at ed int er im or de r, sta te d, “ U nti l furthe r [o ] rd er of thi s [ c] ourt, 13 [F athe r] w ill pay

c hil d su ppor t t o [ Mothe r] in the a m ount of $94 9. 81. ” T he langua ge 14 “ [u] ntil further [o] rder of this [c] ourt” dem onstrates that the parties and district court 15 le ft o pe n a fut ur e ad

jus tm en t o f ch il d s up po rt. Cf

. L aw son , 121 So

. 3d at

772-7 3 16 (d isc uss ing w he the r a sti pul at ed int er im j udgm en t wa s fin al as to c hoi ce of sc hool a nd 17 cu sto dy ). T he re is no suc h sim ilar langua ge w ith re spe ct to the c ust ody a rr an ge m en t 18 contained in th e s t ipulated in terim order. Instead, the stipulated interim order 19 pe rm itt ed

Mo the r to r el oc at e to anothe r sta te w iththe c hil dr ena nd d id no t indic at e16

1 that such relocation would be tem porary or w as subject to further order of the district 2 co urt. A llo w ing r el oc at ionw ithone pare nt, e spe ci al ly ar el oc at iontha t oc curs a cr oss 3 state lines and thu s inherently invol ves rem ovin g children from their curr ent hom e, 4 sc hool , a nd c om

m uni ty , a nd pla ci ng the m in n ewone s, is a co nse que nti al de ci sio n, 5 w hic h w e co nc lud e, unde r the fa ct s of thi s ca se , cr ea te d an “ ex ist ing custo dy 6 ar range m en t.” S ec tio n 40 -4 -9

. 1( A ). A cc or din gly , w e hol d th at a ny m odi fi ca tio n or 7 ch ange f

ro m the sti pul at ed

int er im or de r re qui re d asho w ing of a“ subs tanti al a nd 8 m aterial c hange in circum stances.” Se e Sc hue rm ann v. Sc hu er mann , 1980-NMS C9 027, ¶ ¶ 4, 7, 94 N. M. 81, 607 P. 2d 6 19 ( sta tin g th at the re is a str ong pr es um

pti on i n 10 favor of the or igi na l c ust ody ar

range m en t, an d the pa rty se ek ing to al te r the status quo 11 bears the burden of proving a change in circum stances). 12 { 26} The dist rict cou rt in this case did not consi der w hether there w as a substantial 13 and m aterial c hange in circu m stances aff ecting the best interests of the children 14 be tw ee n th e en tr

y of the sti pul at ed

int er im or de r an d the cu sto dy he ar ing

. N ei the r the 15 m inu te or de r nor the pa re nti ng pla n cont ai n any fi ndi ngs or c onc lus ion s inthi s r eg ar d, 16 nor i s t h er e any

m ention o f Se ction 40 -4-9.1 or its standards for deter m ination of a 17 cu sto dia l r e- as se ssm en t. I m portantl y , it ap pe ar s the pr im ar y —i f not sol e—

ba sis f or 18 the c ha nge in cu sto dy w as the dis tr ic t c our

t’ s de te rm ina tio n th at 19 [i] t is in the best in terests of the m inor chi l d re n t h at they have a 20 sig nif

ic an t r el at ion shi p w ith

. . . [ F] athe r an d [G randpare nts ]

. S ai d17

1 re la tio nship c an not be f ost er ed if the c hil dr enonl y

se e [F athe r] in the 2 sum

m er tim e bec au se his w ork r equir es him to be a w ay

f ro m hom e fo r 3 signi ficant periods of tim e in the summ er due to fire s ea s o n. [M other] 4 can best m aintain her relationship with t he children during th e sum m er 5 m on th s s in ce s he is a te ach er an d wi ll ha ve su m m ers off

. 6 W e co nc lud e tha t the dis tr ic t c ourt’ s f ai lur e to con sid er w he the r a m at er ia l c ha nge in 7 ci rc um stanc es a ff

ec tin g th e be st int er es ts of the c hil dr enoc curr ed

a nd g ranti ng j oin t 8 le ga l c ust ody co nst itu te d an abus e of dis cr et ion

. A lth ough w e cou ld re ve rs e on this 9 ba sis a lon e, w e ta ke the opp ortun ity to ad dr es s M oth er ’ s r em ai nin g arg um en ts. 10 Th e D ist ri ctC ou rtA bu se d It s D isc re ti on in Gr an ti ng Joi ntC us to dy Be ca us e It 11 D id N ot C on du cta B es t In te re st s A na lys is 12 { 27} Mothe r’ s se co nd arg um en t on ap pe al is tha t the dis tr ic t c ourt “ er re d inm ak ing 13 the change to the custod ial arr angem ent without m aking sp ecific finding s that such 14 a change w as in the children’ s best i nterests.” Mother also argues that the district 15 co urt e rr ed

by not m ak ing spe ci fi c fi ndi ngs co nc er nin g im ple m en tin g pr ote ct ionf

or 16 A. H. On both these poin ts, w e agre e w ith Moth er. 17 { 28} T he gui din g pr inc ipl e in c hil d c ust ody de te rm ina tio ns i s th e be st i nte rests o f 18 th e ch il d. Se e Ja ram ill o v . J aram ill o , 1991 -N MS C- 101, ¶ 13, 113 N

. M. 57, 823 P

. 2d 19 299 (“ T he ‘ be st i nte re sts ’ c ri te ri on . . . is the lod es tar for de te rm ini ng a c ust ody 20 aw ar d, und er

both st at ute a nd c as e la w in N ewMe xic o[

. ] ”) ; Sc hue rm ann , 198 0- 21 NMSC -027, ¶

4 ( “ [T ] he c ontro lli ng i nqui ry of the [ dis tr ic t] c ourt i n se ttl ing a ny 22 custodydispu te is the best interests of the child. ”) . P ursuant to Section 40 -4-9(A ),17 W e no te th atth e b es t i nt eres ts an al y si s ap pl ie s i n a ll cu st od y de ci si on s. Se e id. 1 18 (s ta tin g th at an y cu sto dy dis put e shou ld be de te rm ine d ba se d onthe be st i nte re sts of 19 the c hil d)

. Whil e w e re co gni ze tha t the re did not appe ar to be abe st i nte re sts a na ly sis 20 conducted with respect to the stipu lated interim order, we stress that NewMexico law 21 gives prefere nce to custodyarr angem ents reached by the parties, unless th e district 22 co ur t fin ds th at th e ag reem en t is con tra ry to th e b es t i nt eres ts of t he ch il d. See § 40 -4

- 23 9. 1( D ) (“ Ina ny

c as e in w hic h the pa re nts a gr ee to a fo rm of c ust ody , the c ourt sh oul d 24 aw ard custody

consistent with the agre em ent unless th e court determ in es t h at such 25 agreem ent is not in the best inter ests of the child.”). Beca use there w as no findin g that 26 the sti pul at ed

int er im or de r, w hic h w as ba se d onthe part ie s’ a gr ee m en t, w as not in 27 the be st i nte re sts of

the c hil dr en , w e co nc lud e that the or de r pr ope rl y w en t into ef

fe ct

. 18 1 “ [i ] n any

c as e in w hic h aj udgm en t or de cr ee w ill be en te re d aw ar din g th e cu sto dy of 2 a m ino r, the dis tr ic t cour t sh al l, if the m ino r is unde r the a ge of f ourte en , de te rm ine 3 custodyin accordance with the best interes t s o f t h e chil d.” The statute further 1 4 spe ci fi es tha t the dis tr ic t c ourt m ust “ co nsi de r al l re le va nt fa ct or s” in i ts b es t i nte re sts 5 an al y sis , inc lud ing : 6 ( 1 ) t h e wi s h e s o f t h e c h i l d ’s p a r e n t o r p a r e n t s a s t o h i s c u s t o d y; 7 (2 ) the w ish es of the c hil d a s to his c ust odi an ; 8 (3 ) the int er ac tio n and in te rrel at ion shi p of the c hil d w ith his 9 parents, his sibling s and any other person who m ay significantlyaff

ect 10 the c hil d’ s be st i nte re st; 1 1 ( 4 ) t h e c h i l d ’s a d ju s t men t t o h i s h o me, s c h o o l a n d c o mm u n i t y; 12 an d 13 (5 ) the m en ta l an d phy sic al he al th of al l ind ivi dua ls i nvol ve d. 14 Id

. Im portantl y , “ [i ] f the m ino r is f ourte eny ears of

a ge or ol de r, the c ourt sh al l 15 co nsi de r the de sir es of the m ino r as to w ith w hom he w ish es to liv e be fo re a w ar din g 16 cu st od y

of s uc h m in or .” Sect io n 4 0- 4- 9( B).19

1 { 29} Whe n adis tr ic t c ourt i s de te rm ini ng w he the r j oin t c ust ody sho uld be a w ar de d, 2 the district co u rt i s required to consider not on ly the fac tors discus sed above und er 3 Se ct ion40- 4- 9( A ), w hic h are appl ic ab le to al l c hil d c ust ody de te rm in at io ns, b ut 4 ad dit ion al f

ac tor s un de r Se ct ion40- 4- 9. 1( B)

. T he a ddi tio na l f ac tor s are a s f

oll ow s: 5 (1 ) w he the r the c hil d ha s e sta bli she d a c los e re la tio nshi p w ith 6 ea chpare nt; 7 (2) whether each pare nt is capable of providi ng adequate car e 8 fo r

t h e c h i l dt h r o u g h o u te a c h p e r i o do f r e s p o n s i b i l i t y , i n c lud ing 9 ar

rangi ng f or the c hil d’ s c ar e by

oth er s a s ne ed ed ; 10 (3) whether each pare nt is w illing to accept all r espons ibiliti es 11 of parenting, including a w illing ness to accept car e o f th e child at 12 spe ci fi ed

ti m es and t o r el inq

uis h c ar e to t

he oth e r p a r e nt a t s p e ci fi ed ti m es ; 13 (4 ) w he the r the c hil d c anbe st m aintai n and s tr en gth ena 14 re la tio nshi p w ithboth pa re nts thr ough pr ed ic ta ble , fr eque nt co nta ct

a nd 15 w he the r the ch ild ’ s de ve lop m en t w ill pr of it fr om suc h inv olv em en t and 16 inf

lue nc e fr om

both pare nts ; 17 (5 ) w he the r ea chpare nt i s a ble to al lo w t he oth er

to pr ovi de 18 care w ith out

intru sio n, tha t i s, to r es pe ct the oth er ’ s pare nta l r igh ts and 1 9 r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s an dr i g h tt o p r i v a c y; 20 (6 ) the sui ta bil ity of a pa re nti ng plan fo r the im ple m en ta tio n of 21 jo i n t custody , pre fera bly , a lthou gh no t necessarily , one ar rived at 22 thr oughpare nta l a gr ee m en t; 23 (7 ) ge ogr ap hic dis tanc e be tw ee n th e pa re nts ’ r es ide nc es ; 24 (8) willingness o r ability of the p ar en t s to comm unicate, 25 co ope ra te or

a gr ee on i ssu es r eg ar din g th e ch ild ’ s ne ed s; and 26 (9 ) w he the r a j udi ci al ad j udi ca tio n ha s be en m ad e in a pr ior or 27 the pr es en t pr oc ee din g that ei the r pa re nt or othe r pe rs on s ee kin g c ust ody 28 ha s en ga ge d i n o ne or m or e act s of do m es ti c ab us e ag ai ns t th e ch il d, a 29 paren t of

the c hil d or

oth er hou se hol d m em

be r. I f a de te rm ina tio n is 30 m ad e tha t do m es tic abuse ha s occ ur re d, the co urt shal l set fo rth f ind ing s 31 tha t th e cu sto dy or vis ita tio n or de re d by

the c ourt a de qua te ly

pr ote ct s 32 the child, the abused parent or other househo ld m em ber. 33 Section 40-4-9.1(B)

.20

1 { 30} Whil e the “ best in te re sts te st i s br oa d and v es ts the [ dis tr ic t c ourt] w ith 2 co nsi de ra

ble dis cr et ion [, t] he ex er ci se of dis cr et ionby

the [ dis tr ic t c ourt]

. . . m

ust be 3 co ns is te nt wit h t he ev id en ce” a nd st at ut or y req ui rem en ts

. Sc hu er mann , 1980-NMS C4 027, ¶ 8 ( int er na l qu ota tio n m ar

ks o m itt ed ); Newhouse v. Chavez , 198 8- N MC A -1 10, 5 ¶ 24, 108 N

. M. 319 , 772 P

. 2d 3 53 ( se tti ng f orth the stat ut or y req uir em en t tha t a 6 district court m

ust find a “ subs tantial and m aterial change in circum stances” in order 7 to m odi fy

a n e xis tin g c ust ody

a rr an ge m en t (i nte rn al quo ta tio n m ar ks and c ita tio n 8 om itted)). 9 { 31} H er e, our re vie w of the r ec or d r ev ea ls tha t the dis tr ic t c ourt di d no t m ak e an y 10 spe ci fi c fi ndi ngs re la te d to a ny of the statut or ily

m an da te d f

ac tor s it w as r equir ed

to 11 co nsi de r w he n m ak ing a cus tody de te rm ina tio n. T he dis tr ic t cour t m ad e onl y

va gue 12 an d br oa d st at em en ts i n find ing s re ga rd ing the ch ildre n’ s be st i nte re sts , statin g th at , 13 “ [i ] t i s inthe be st i nte re st s of th e m ino r ch ildre n th at the y ha ve asig nif

ic an t 14 re la tio nshi p wi th .

. . [ F] athe r an d [ G randpare nts ] ” an d th at “ [t ] he be st i nte re sts of

the 15 ch ildre n are the pr im ar y c onsi de ra tio n f

or the [ dis tr ic t c ] ourt i n m ak ing ti m e shari ng 16 decisions .” The district court insi nuated that the best int e r e sts of the c hildren inv olved 17 spe ndi ng the “ m ax im um a m ount of qua lity ti m e” w ith each par en t bu t di d no t 18 articulate any

rea son why

that wa s in the children’s best interests to relocate them 19 ag ai n c onsi de ri ng the e vid en ce be fo re it

.21

1 { 32} A lth oughw e st res s th at th e dis tr ic t c ourt’ s f ai lur e to c onsi de r an y

of the 2 sta tut or

y f ac tor s c onst itu te d e rr or , the c ourt’ s ne gle ct of som e pa rt ic ularl y

r el ev an t 3 factors illustrates the court’ s abuse of discretion in this case. For instance, the district 4 co ur t d i d n o t c o n s i d e r t h e w i s h e s o f a n y o f t h e f o u r m i n o r c h i l d r e n i n m ak ing it s 5 cu st od y

de te rm in at io n. See § 40 -4 -9 (A )( 2) ( re qui ri ng the dis tr ic t c ourt t o c onsi de r the 6 ch ildre n’ s w ish es a s to the ir c ust ody ). A nd i m

portantl y , the dis tr ic t co ur t di d no t 7 co nsi de r the w ish es of A

. H

. , w ho w as f

ourte eny ears old a t the ti m e of the c ust ody 8 h e a r in g. See § 40

- 4- 9( B ) ( “ I f t he m i no r

i s f ourt e e n y e a r s of

a ge o r o l de r , t he court 9 shall consi der the desires of t h e m i n o r as to with whom he w ishes to li ve before 10 aw arding custod y

of such m inor.”). The wishes of the children, considering that they 11 h ad lim ited contact with Father for tw o y ears and had essenti ally been in Moth er ’s 12 sole custod y

since the child abuse inciden t, wo u l d certainly have been vital 13 inform ation for the district court to take into account. Ha d the district court inq uired 14 as to A. H. ’ s wishes, the r ecord suggests th at she likely woul d have indicated her 15 de sire no t to be in Fa the r’ s c ust ody

. I n f ac t, A

. H

. te sti fi ed

a t a sho w c au se he ar ing 16 tha t sh e did

not fe el sa fe w ith Fa the r be ca use of his phy sic al ly

abusi ve be ha vio r an d 17 the episode in which he kicked her so hard he broke her leg. Because the district court 18 did no t take into account A.H .’ s wishes, as it was r equired to by statute, the district 19 co urt pl ac ed

he r in the pr im ar

y phy sic al c ust ody

of a pa re nt w ithw hom

she ha d no t16 W e re co gni ze tha t the pa rt ie s did not of fe r an y ev ide nc e at

the D ec em

be r 2014 2 1 7 c u s t o d y h e a r i n g i n d i c a t i n g t h e c h i l d r e n ’s p r e f e r e n c e o r d e s i r e s a s t o t h e i r

c u s t o d y. 18 H ow ev er , w he re the part ie s have not pr ovi de d su ff

ic ie nt i nf orm at ionf

or ac ourt t o 19 ad dr es s th e re le va nt s ta tut or y c onsi de ra tio ns, it

is inc um be nt on th e dis tr ic t c ourt “ to 20 elicit further inform ation on its ow n m otion .” Se e Ja ram ill o , 199 1- N MS C- 101, ¶ 27 21 (explaining that a cou rt s houl d take t he initiativ e to seek rele vant inform ation when 22 it is not provided b y

the parties in a child custodydispu te).

22 1 seen or talked to for at lea st two y ears and wi t h wh o m she did no t feel saf

e, very 2 pr oba bly c ontrary to he r be st i nte re sts

. Se e ge ne ral ly Ja ram ill o , 199 1- N MS C- 101, 2 3 ¶ 14 (explaining that a parent has prim ary phy sical custody of a child if the child lives 4 with that parent for m ore than half of the tim e). 5 { 33} L ike w ise , the dis tr ic t c ourt di d no t di sc uss w itha ny spe ci fi ci ty

howthe 6 ch ildre n’ s inte ra ct ion s and inte rr el at ion shi ps wi th Mothe r, Fa the r, an d G randpare nts 7 affe ct ed th ei r be st in te res ts in eit he r th e m in ut e o rd er o r pa ren ti ng pl an . See § 40 -4

- 8 9( A )( 3) (r equir ing the dis tr ic t cour t to c onsi de r “ the int er ac tio n and i nte rr el at ion shi p 9 of the c hil d w ith his pa re nts , his sib lin gs and any oth er pe rs on w ho m ay

sig nif ic an tly 10 af fe ct the c hil d’ s be st i nte re st” ); § 40 -4 -9

. 1( B) (1 ) (r equir ing the dis tr ic t c ourt, in a 11 j oin t c ust ody

de te rm ina tio n, t o c onsi de r “ w he the r the c hil d ha s e sta bli she d ac los e 12 relationship with ea ch parent”). Nor did th e distric t c ou r t address whether

the children 13 wou ld be ne fit fro m in crea se d con ta ct wit h F at he r. See § 40 -4 -9

. 1( B) (4 ) (r equir ing the 1 4 d i s t r i c tc o u rtt o c o n s i d e r w h e t h e r t h e c h i l d r e n ’ s “ d e v e l o p m e n t[ w o u l d ] p r o f i tf ro m 15 [p re dic ta

ble a nd f re que nt] inv olv em en t and i nf lue nc e fr om

both pare nts ”)

. Bu t23

1 Father’ s extended period o f lim ited contact wi t h the children and Moth er’ s role as 2 sol e care ta ke r m er ite d ana ly sis w ithr es pe ct to h owthe c hil dr en ’ s r el at ion shi p w ith 3 th ei r pa ren ts wou ld be affe ct edby any ch an ge to th e st at us qu o. 4 { 34} T he c onsi de ra

ble ne ed f or sta bil ity a nd c ont inu ity

in the ch il dr en ’ s c ust ody 5 ar range m en t and the da m ag e tha t m igh t oc cur fr om dis ru pti ng e sta bli she d pa tte rn s of 6 care , r elationshi ps, and em otion al connections with Moth er—the prim ary 7 ca r e ta ke r—wa rran te d t he di st ric t co ur t’s co ns id erat io n. See Sc hue rm ann , 198 0- 8 NMS C-027, ¶ 7 (explaining that, gener ally , a child’ s best interests will not be served 9 by m odi fy ing ac ust ody

a rr an gem en t un le ss the re ha s be enasub stanti al c ha nge in 10 ci rc um stanc es , f

or e xa m ple , if the curr en t cust ody sit

ua tio n “ pr ev en ts the c hil d f ro m 11 rece iving proper car e or fr om enj oy ing stabl e fam ily

relationships ”). 12 { 35} Fu rt h erm ore, the district court m ade no finding s about ho w the c hildren’s 13 re la tio nshi p w ithG randpare nts f ac tor ed int o the ch ildre n’ s be st i nte re sts in lig ht o f 1 4 the f ac t th a t t h e y h a d n o c o n t a c t w i t h t h e m f o r s e v e n y e a r s a n d w o u l d a l l e g e d l y be 15 m ov in g to New Mex ic o t o h el p c are fo r th em . Se e Ne wh ouse , 198 8- N MC A -1 10, ¶ 20 16 (c onc lud ing tha t the dis tr ic t c ourt e rr ed in not m ak ing a ny

“ fi ndi ngs ad dr es sin g th e 17 int er es ts o f the ch ildre n in the ir re la tio nshi p w ith [the ir ] m oth er , the ir y oung er sib lin g 1 8 o r t h e i r s t e p f a t h e r , o r a s t o t h e i n t e r d e p e n d e n tr e l a t i o n s h i p s wi t h i n t h i s f a mi l y, 19 althoug h there w as evidence fr om which the [district] court could have m ade such17 O f sig ni fic an ce, w e not e tha t the dis tr ic t c ourt’ s or de r re qui ri ng a ll fo ur 3 18 children to live with Father com m encing with the start o f th e 2015-20 16 schoo l y ear 19 ap pe ar s to c onf

lic t wi th h is p ro ba tio n a gr ee m en t, w hic h e xpi re d inD ec em be r 2015 , 20 an d st at ed

tha t F athe r sho ul d no t a sso ci at e w itha ny pe rs on d etri m en ta l t o hi s 21 pr oba tio n su

pe rv isi on, w hic h m ay

inc lud e an y

vic tim of his c ri m es . 24 1 finding s[,] ” and because there we re no “ finding s to ind icate th at the [district] court 2 co ns id ered th e eff

ect of i ts jud gm en t o n t he se rel at io ns hi ps ” (ci ta ti on om it te d) ). 3 { 36} Ina ddi tio n, the dis tr ic t c ourt di d n ot c onsi de r the im pa ct tha t m ovi ng the 4 ch ildre n f

ro m P hoe nix ba ck

to Ru ido so w oul d have on the m . See § 40-4 -9 (A )( 4) 5 (r equir ing the dis tr ic t c ourt t o c onsi de r the “ ch ild ’ s a dj ustm en t t o h is ho m e, sc hool 6 and com

m unity ”). The district c ourt f irst granted the stipu lated interim order, which 7 pe rm itt ed

Mo the r to re loc at e to Ph oe nix w ith the ch ildre n in the sum m er of 2014 a nd 8 then sub sequentlyordered that the children m ove back to Ruido so to liv e w ith Father 9 fo r the c om

m en ce m en t of

the 201 5- 2016 sc hool y ear, a fter the y ha d a lr ea dy 10 com pleted a y ear of school in Phoenix. The distri ct co u rt did not analy ze w hether 3 1 1 r e mo v i n g t h e c h i l d r e n f r o m t h e i r h o me , s c h o o l , a n d c o mmu n i t y f o r t h e s e c o n dt i me 1 2 i n aye a r

w o u l dh a v e a n y n e g a t i v e i mp a c to n t h e i r b e s t i n t e r e s t s . A s o u r

S up r e me 13 Court has observed, “ [f] requent changes of schools and hom e locations, differ ences 14 in f am ily str uc tur es a nd i n pare nta l pe rs ona lit ie s are dif fi cu lt fo r ch ildre n to a da

pt t o 15 even under the best o f circ um stances.” Sc hue rm ann , 198 0- N MS C- 027, ¶ 7. T he 16 district court failed to accor d any we ight to these considerations—t he children’ s need25

1 fo r a sta

ble en vir onm en t and the im pa ct of upr oot ing the m

onc e ag ai n no t on ly

f ro m 2 th ei r ho m e, sc ho ol , and co m m un it y , bu t al so fro m

th e p rimary

care of M ot he r. 3 { 37} Al s o , th e ev i d en ce ad du ce d at t h e cu s t o d y h ea ri n g re g ar d i n g t h e ch i l d re n ’s 4 adj ustm ent to their new private school in Phoe n i x i n d icated that the children we re 5 excelling and do ing better than they had at the public schools in Ruidos o. There w as 6 ev ide nc e tha t the c hil d wi th a lea rn ing dis ab ili ty w as ge tti ng spe ci al iz ed at te nti on and 7 A. H. wa s rece iving indiv idualized treatm en t for her special needs. F ather even 8 adm itt ed

tha t the doc tor s inP hoe nix were bette r sui te d f or A

. H

. a nd tha t he ha d no 9 reason to believe t h at t h e ch ildren wer e not doin g well in Phoenix. H ad the district 10 co urt c onsi de re d th e ch ildre n’ s po sit ive a dj ustm ent to their ne w hom e, sc hool , a nd 11 com m unity , a s required by Section 40-4-9(A)( 4), the evidence would have we ighed 12 in f av or of m ai nta ini ng the ir

c ur re nt c ust ody

a rr an ge m en t. Se e Sc hue rm ann , 198 0- 13 NMS C-027, ¶ 7 (“ Modifications in custodyshoul d not b e granted too quickl y .” ). 14 { 38} Fi na lly , th e dis tr ic t c ourt ne gle ct ed to ex am ine the im

pa ct of pla ci ng A

. H

. in 15 Fat he r’s pr im ary ph y si cal cu st od y . See § 40-4-9.1(B)( 9) (re quiring the district court 16 to c onsi de r “ w he the r a j udi ci al ad j udi ca tio n ha s be enm ad e in a pr ior or the pr es en t 17 pr oc ee din g th at

e ith er pare nt o r oth er

pe rs on s ee kin g c ust ody

ha s e nga ge d in o ne or 18 m or e ac ts o f dom es tic abuse a ga ins t th e ch il d”). T he dis tr ic t c ourt he ar d te sti m ony 19 regarding the incident in which Father broke A. H. ’ s leg, and the court tookj udicial26

1 not ic e of

the c hil d abus e charg e and the pr oba tio n a gr ee m en t. T he dis tr ic t c ourt a lso 2 not ed the inc ide nt i n it s f

ind ing s of

f ac t. N one the le ss, the dis tr ic t c ourt i ne xpl ic ab ly 3 fa ile d to f

ac tor e ith er the pr oba tio n a gr ee m en t or the c hil d a

buse i nto a ny

be st 4 int er es ts ana ly sis

. Whil e w e not e tha t F athe r re ce ive d ac ondi tio na l di sc ha rg e, a nd a 5 co nd it i o n a l d is ch arg e is no t an ad jud ic at io n o f gu il t u nd er New Me xi co law, see 6 NMS A 1978 , § 31-20-13 (A ) (1994), e vidence at the custodyhearing indicated that 7 A

. H

. w as ne ga tiv el y im pa ct ed by the inc ide nt an d ha d dif fi cu lti es co pin g w ithit

. T he 8 dis tr ic t c ourt, the re fo re , abuse d it s di sc ret io n in not c onsi de ri ng h owthe abuse a nd 9 A

. H

. ’ s r el at ion shi p w ithF athe r af fe ct ed he r be st i nte re sts

. A nd s ign if ic an tly , the 10 district court failed to m ake any findings on whether granting Father prim ary phy sical 11 cu st od y wou ld ad eq ua te ly pr ot ect A.H. See § 40-4 -9

. 1( B) (9 ) (“ If ade te rm ina tio n is 12 m ad e tha t do m es tic abuse h as oc cu rred, the c ourt sh al l se t f orth f ind ing s th at

the 13 cu st od y

or v is it at io n o rd ered by the co ur t ad eq ua te ly pro te ct s t he ch il d[ .] ”). 14 { 39} T o su m

m ar iz e, be ca

use the dis tr ic t court

did not c onsi de r the statut or ily 15 m an da te d f

ac tor s r el ev an t t o a de term ina tio n of the c hil dr en ’ s be st i nte re sts , the 16 dis tr ic t cour

t abus ed its dis cr et ion in granti ng j oin t cust ody to M oth er a nd F athe r an d 17 in awar ding prim ary

phy sical custodyto Father.27

1 Th er e Was N ot S ub st an ti al E vid en ce S up po rt in g t he D ist ri ctC ou rt ’s F in di ng s 2 { 40} T ur

nin g ne xt t o the iss ue of subs tanti al ev ide nc e, w e co nc lud e, f or the e nsui ng 3 re as ons, tha t the re w as not subs tanti al ev ide nc e fo r the dis tr ic t c ourt’ s f ind ing s and 4 ult im a t e a w a r do f

j o i n tc u s t o d y

w i t h p r i m a ry

p h y s i c a l c u s t o d y

b e i n g a w a r d e dto 5 Fat he r. See G rant , 2005 -N MCA -058, ¶ 13 ( explainin g that we will upho ld a district 6 court’ s custod y

findings if they

are suppo rted by

subst antial evidence). 7 { 41} T his Co urt w ill not r ew ei gh e vid en ce on app ea l or subst itu te our j udgm en t f

or 8 th atof t he di st ric t co ur t. Se e Je ant et e v. J ea nte te , 1990-NMC A- 138, ¶ 8, 111 N. M. 9 417, 806 P

. 2d 66 (“ [T ] he appe lla te c ourt w ill not r ew ei gh the f

ind ing s of the [ dis tr ic t] 10 co urt i nvol vin g di sput ed te sti m ony or inf

er en ce s to be dr aw n th er ef ro m , nor the 11 [district] court’ s determ ination as to the cr ed i b ility of the w itnesses.”). The district 12 co urt’ s f

ind ing s, ne ve rthe le ss, m

ust be sup porte d by

“ su ch re le va nt e vid en ce tha t a 13 reasonable m ind w ould find a dequate to support a conclusion .” State v. Brown , 201 4- 14 NMS C-038, ¶ 43, 338 P.3d 1276 (internal quotation m arks and citation om itted). 15 { 42} H er e, the dis tr ic t c ou rt m ad e num er ous fi ndi ngs tha t w er e not sup porte d by 16 subs tanti al e vi de nc e, w hic h a ppare ntl y inf orm ed it s c ust ody

de te rm ina tio n. T he 17 district court, for exam ple, f ound that Mother had “ engaged in a deliberate program 18 of alienation of the children from [Fa ther and his] fam ily ,” but the un dispu ted 19 ev ide nc e w as tha t F athe r ha d m ove d ou t of the f am ily ho m e aft er the c hil d a buse28

1 incident, and his lim ited contact with t he children had started at that tim e. Morever, 2 C Y F D h a d s p e c i f

i c a l l y r e q u i r e dt h a tF a t h e r s t a y o u to f

t h e h o me f

o r ap e r i o do f

t i me 3 af te r the in ci de nt, a nd the pr oba tio n a gr ee m en t r equir ed F athe r to r ef

ra in f ro m 4 as soc ia tin g w ithpe rs ons de tr im en ta l to his prob at ion supe rv isi on, w hic h m ay inc lud e 5 any victim of his crim es . Th e ev idence in the record, therefor e, established th at 6 Fa the r’ s a lie na tio n fr om th e fam ily w as larg el y

c au se d by

his ow n a ct ion s, a nd n ot 7 Mo th er’s “ de li be rat e p ro gr am of a li en at io n.” 8 { 43} Si m i l a r l y , t h e d i s t r i c tc o u rtf o u n dt h a tM o t h e r

“ w o u l dn o tc o o p e r a t e w ith 9 al low ing c al ls f

ro m [F athe r, ] ” but Mothe r al le ge d th at she ha d m iss ed

onl y one c al l 10 fr om F athe r dur ing the tim e in que sti on. F athe r him se lf a cknow le dge d th at

his pho ne 11 ca lls w iththe c hil dr en“ w er e int er m itt en t at be st, som et im es due to m y j ob, be ing in 12 rem ote area s [and] not having service. ” The district court’ s finding that Mother had 13 al ie na te d r el at ive s f

ro m the ch il dr enw as be lie d by it s c ontrary

f ind ing tha t the 14 decision to cut off cont act with Gr andparents and other fam ily m em bers wa s a m

utual 15 decision m ade by

Father and Mother. 16 { 44} W e not e as w el l the dis tr ic t co urt’ s fi ndi ngs tha t the fam ily r es ide nc e w as in a 17 state of d isrepair and Mother “ could never find tim e in her schedu le to allow [F ather] 18 to c om e in” a nd m ak e the r ep ai rs a nd tha t M oth er “ did not m ak e an y

im pr ove m en ts 19 to the hom e w hil e [F athe r] w as out of the hou se an d th e co ndi tio ns w er e poor . ” Y et ,29

1 the undi sputed evid ence showed that Fa ther had left m any proje cts unfinish ed when 2 he left the house due to the child abuse incident. Mo re o v er , t h e d istrict court 3 ap pa re ntl y

did not giv e an y w ei ght to the r ea sons w hy

Mo the r pr ev en te d F athe r fr om 4 ret ur ni ng to th e h om e, su ch as F at he r’s an ge r is su es an d a gg res si ve be ha vi or . 5 { 45} W e ar e unpersuaded by any we ight g iven by

the district court that Mother had 6 re fu se d to r et

ur n e xc es s c hil d su

ppor t and tha t F athe r ha d be enf or ce d to pay

unp ai d 7 uti lity bil ls. T he co urt w hol ly fa ile d to re la te the se fi ndi ngs to a be st int er es ts ana ly sis 8 orin di cat e h o w t hi s ev id en ce s up po rte d i ts joi nt cu st od y de te rm in at io n. See 9 Ja ram ill o , 1991-NMS C-101, ¶ 13 (“ The ‘ best interests’ criter ion . .

. is the lodest ar 10 for deter

m ining a cus todyaw ard[. ] ”)

. Nothing in the m inute order or parenting plan 1 1 es t ab l i s h es t h at i twa s n o ti n t h e c h i l d re n ’s b es ti n t er es t s t o re m ai n i n Mo t h er ’s 12 pr im ar

y c ar e in P hoe nix

. I nde ed , our r ev ie wof

the r ec or d do es no t re ve al a ny 13 ev ide nc e supp ortin g th e not io n that it w as in the c hil dr en ’ s be st i nte re sts to be 1 4 r e mo v e df

r o m th e i r p r i mary c a r e t a k e r , t h e i r h o me, o r t h e i r s c h o o l i n P h o e n i x . La s t l y, 1 5 t h e d i s t ri ct co u rt al s o d i dn o tci t e a n y fa ct s s up p o rt i n g t h at i twa s i n t h e c h i l d re n ’s 16 be st i nte re sts to ha ve ar el at ion shi p w it h Gran dpare nts , w ho the y bare ly kne w a nd 1 7 w h o w o u l da l l e g e d l y b e mo v i n g t o N e w M e x i c o t o h e l p c a r e f o r t h e m. 18 { 46} Co nsi de ring the f or eg oin g di sc uss ion

—the dis tr ic t c ourt’ s f

ind ing s and 19 subs eque nt c hil d c ust ody or de r giv ing F athe r pr im ary p hysical c ust ody dur ing the30

1 sc ho ol y ear— was no t s up po rte d b y su bs ta nt ia l ev id en ce. Se e G rant , 20 05

- NMCA2 058, ¶ 13 ( “ [W ] e w ill uph old the [d istri ct ] co urt’ s [ cu sto dy ] f ind ing s if sup porte d by 3 subs tanti al e vid en ce . ” (i nte rn al quo ta tio n m ar ks and c ita tio n om itt ed )) ; se e als o 4 Brown , 2014-NMS C-038, ¶ 43 (“ Substantial evidence i s such relevant evid ence that 5 a re as ona

ble m ind w oul d fi nd ad equa te to supp ort a co nc lus ion

. ” (i nte rn al quo ta tio n 6 m ark s an d c it at io n o m it te d) ). 7 { 47} W e re ve rs e the dis tr ic t co urt’ s Marc h 2015 pare nti ng plan w iththe f oll ow ing 8 instructio ns. Because the children are in the m iddle of t he school y ear and have been 9 liv ing w ithF athe r fo r the pa st fi ve m onths, w e re co gni ze the dis ru pti on o ur de ci sio n 10 w ill ha ve on the ir

li ve s y et a ga in. T he dis tr ic t c ourt sh oul d c onsi de r ap poi nti ng a 11 ne utr al guard ian a d l it em (G A L ), pur suant t o R ule 1- 053. 3( A ) N MR

A , w hic h w ill 12 al lowthe G A L to w ork w ith the pa re nts an d the co urt to arr ive a t an or de rl y tr an sit ion 13 plan f ro m F athe r’ s c ust ody

ba ck to Mothe r. T he dis trict co urt i s to hol d ahe ar ing 14 within forty -five day s of the date of this opin ion and sh oul d en t er an order 15 im ple m en tin g th e plan no la te r than f ive bus ine ss d ay s a ft er

the he ar ing

. 16 CON CLU SION 17 { 48} Fo r the r ea sons state d, w e re ve rs e and va ca te the dis tr ic t c ourt’ s M ar ch201 5 18 parenting plan with ins tructions as set forth above.31

1 { 49} IT IS S O ORDERE D. 2

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ___ 3 LI N D A M . V A N Z I, C hi ef Ju dg e 4 WE CO NCUR:

5

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ _ 6 JO N A TH A N B. S U TI N , Ju dg e

7

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ _ 8 M IC HA EL E. V IG IL , Ju dg e