NM Stat § 40-11A-636 (2021)
2021 New Mexico Statutes|Chapter 40 - Domestic Affairs|Article 11A - New Mexico Uniform Parentage Act|Article 6 - PROCEEDING TO ADJUDICATE PARENTAGE|Part 3 - Hearings and Adjudication|Section 40-11A-636 - Order adjudicating parentage.

A. The district court shall issue an order adjudicating whether a man alleged or claiming to be the father is the parent of the child.B. An order adjudicating parentage shall identify the child by name and date of birth.C. Except as otherwise provided in Subsection D of this section, the district court may assess filing fees, reasonable fees of counsel, experts and the child's guardian ad litem, fees for genetic testing, other costs and necessary travel and other reasonable expenses incurred in a proceeding pursuant to this article. The district court may award attorney fees, which may be paid directly to the attorney, who may enforce the order in the attorney's own name. The district court may order these fees, costs and expenses to be paid by any party in proportions and at times as determined by the court, but not exceeding three years from the date of the filing of the action unless there is a substantial showing that paternity could not have been established and an action for child support could not have been brought within three years of the child's birth. The court may order the proportion of any indigent party to be paid from court funds.D. The district court shall not assess fees, costs or expenses against the support-enforcement agency of this state or another state, except as provided by other law.E. On request of a party and for good cause shown, the district court may order that the name of the child be changed.F. If the order of the district court is at variance with the child's birth certificate, the district court shall order the bureau to issue an amended birth certificate.G. The judgment or order may contain any other provision directed against or on behalf of the appropriate party to the proceeding concerning the duty of past and future support, the custody and guardianship of the child, visitation with the child, the furnishing of bond or other security for the payment of the judgment or any other matter within the jurisdiction of the court. The judgment or order may direct the father to pay the reasonable expenses of the mother's pregnancy, birth and confinement. The court shall order child support retroactive to the date of the child's birth, but not to exceed three years unless there is a substantial showing that paternity could not have been established and an action for child support could not have been brought within three years of the child's birth pursuant to the provisions of Sections 40-4-11 through 40-4-11.3 NMSA 1978; provided that, in deciding whether or how long to order retroactive support, the court shall consider:(1) whether the alleged or presumed father has absconded or could not be located; and(2) whether equitable defenses are applicable. H. Support judgments or orders ordinarily shall be for periodic payments, which may vary in amount. In the best interest of the child, a lump-sum payment or the purchase of an annuity may be ordered in lieu of periodic payments of support; provided, however, nothing in this section shall deprive a state agency of its right to reimbursement from an appropriate party should the child be a past or future recipient of public assistance.I. In determining the amount to be paid by a parent for support of the child, a court, child support hearing officer or master shall make such determination in accordance with the provisions of the child support guidelines pursuant to Section 40-4-11.1 NMSA 1978. History: Laws 2009, ch. 215, § 6-636; 2021, ch. 20, § 16. ANNOTATIONSThe 2021 amendment, effective July 1, 2021, provided that fees related to adjudicating parentage not be ordered to be paid later than three years from the date of filing for child support, and provided that retroactive child support be limited to three years; and changed "twelve" to "three" throughout, after the next occurrence of "years", added "from the date of the filing of the action". The Uniform Parentage Act applies where parentage has not previously been determined. — Where, before the child was born, the mother and the father filed a stipulation in a California court in which the father acknowledged paternity of the child; the California court expressly reserved the issue of child support; and the mother sought to amend the stipulation in New Mexico to recover retroactive child support, the district court erred in applying the Uniform Parentage Act and adjudicating the parentage of the child a second time and ordering the father to pay retroactive child support for an arrearage that accrued over twelve years. Zabolzadeh v . Zabolzadeh, 2009-NMCA-046, 146 N.M. 125, 207 P.3d 359. Judgment awarding mother retroactive child support affirmed. — Where mother's conduct supports the determination that she waived child support by denying father's paternity, destroying the baby clothing he sent, and testifying that she did not want anything from him and mother knew she was entitled to child support from father, yet she did not seek support for twelve years from the child's birth in 1986, and she actively denied father's paternity, the evidence established the elements of waiver by acquiescence, and the court's judgment awarding mother retroactive child support beginning December 1998 is affirmed. Webb v. Menix, 2004-NMCA-048, 135 N.M. 531, 90 P.3d 989. Retroactive child support when an acknowledgment of paternity has established the parent-child relationship. — Where father was ordered to pay child support retroactive to the date of his separation from mother pursuant to the New Mexico Uniform Parentage Act (NMUPA), 40-11A-101 to -903 NMSA 1978, and where father argued that the NMUPA's retroactive child support provision does not apply to him because he acknowledged paternity before mother and the child support enforcement division petitioned for child support, the district court did not err in ordering father to pay retroactive child support, because the NMUPA authorizes district courts to order retroactive support either when an acknowledgement of paternity has established the parent-child relationship or when there has been an adjudication of paternity of a child. N.M. Human Servs. Dep't v. Toney, 2019-NMCA-035, cert. denied.Scope of appellate review. — Appellate court will review the district court's findings and conclusions as to trial costs and reasonable attorney fees that relate to the nature of the proceedings, the complexity of the case, the abilities of the parties' attorneys, and the parties' economic disparities. Webb v. Menix, 2004-NMCA-048, 135 N.M. 531, 90 P.3d 989. Action to avoid child support obligation against public policy. — Father's legal claims against mother, based on contraceptive fraud, to recover compensatory damages for the "economic injury" of supporting a child were not cognizable in New Mexico courts because they contravene the public policy of this state. Wallis v. Smith, 2001-NMCA-017, 130 N.M. 214, 22 P.3d 682, cert. denied, 130 N.M. 254, 23 P.3d 929. Court may grant grandparent's visitation privileges. — Under the Grandparent's Visitation Privileges Act (40-9-1 to 40-9-4 NMSA 1978), a court may grant visitation privileges in the rendering of a judgment as to the existence of a parent-child relationship pursuant to this article. Lucero v. Hart, 1995-NMCA-121, 120 N.M. 794, 907 P.2d 198. Application to fathers not denying paternity. — Retroactive support provisions of Uniform Parentage Act apply to fathers who do not deny paternity of their children but never formally acknowledge their paternity or assume legal responsibility for their support. Sisneroz v. Polanco, 1999-NMCA-039, 126 N.M. 779, 975 P.2d 392. Deviations from child support guidelines. — In judgment for paternity and retroactive child support, trial court erred in departing from the statutory child support guidelines without first determining the amount due under the guidelines, in failing to clearly indicate how it arrived at its award, and in failing to explain its deviations from the guidelines. Tedford v. Gregory, 1998-NMCA-067, 125 N.M. 206, 959 P.2d 540, cert. denied, 125 N.M. 147, 958 P.2d 105. Pregnancy and childbirth costs. — Trial court erred in holding that mother did not have standing to seek reimbursement of pregnancy and childbirth costs under this section; although not the real party in interest, mother had standing because she had incurred the costs. Sisneroz v. Polanco, 1999-NMCA-039, 126 N.M. 779, 975 P.2d 392. Right of retroactive support not waived by mother's inaction. — Because retroactive child support is for the benefit of the child as well as the custodial parent, the right to such retroactive support was not deemed to have been waived by the mother's failure to request child support or institute proceedings. Sisneroz v. Polanco, 1999-NMCA-039, 126 N.M. 779, 975 P.2d 392. Medical coverage alone not "child support." — Child support obligation was not met merely by father's provision of medical insurance for child, where such coverage was required by the Mandatory Medical Support Act, Chapter 40, Article 4C NMSA 1978, and was in addition to, not in lieu of, father's support obligations under the child support guidelines. Sisneroz v. Polanco, 1999-NMCA-039, 126 N.M. 779, 975 P.2d 392. Award of costs and fees to child. — Absent a showing of cause, it was error to deny costs and attorney's fees to daughter, who prevailed in action against father for paternity and retroactive child support, and presented evidence of her inability to pay these costs and her father's ability to do so. Tedford v. Gregory, 1998-NMCA-067, 125 N.M. 206, 959 P.2d 540, cert. denied, 125 N.M. 147, 958 P.2d 105. Fee award held insufficient. — In light of financial disparity between mother and father, and the $1,890 in unpaid attorney's fees outstanding, it was error to only award her $600 in fees. Sisneroz v. Polanco, 1999-NMCA-039, 126 N.M. 779, 975 P.2d 392. Application to fathers not denying paternity. — Retroactive support provisions of Uniform Parentage Act apply to fathers who do not deny paternity of their children but never formally acknowledge their paternity or assume legal responsibility for their support. Sisneroz v. Polanco, 1999-NMCA-039, 126 N.M. 779, 975 P.2d 392. Am. Jur. 2d, A.L.R. and C.J.S. references. — Postmajority disability as reviving parental duty to support child, 48 A.L.R.4th 919. Parent's transsexuality as factor in award of custody of children, visitation rights, or termination of parental rights, 59 A.L.R.4th 1170. Liability of father for retroactive child support on judicial determination of paternity, 87 A.L.R.5th 361.