NM Stat § 40-11A-602 (2021)
2021 New Mexico Statutes|Chapter 40 - Domestic Affairs|Article 11A - New Mexico Uniform Parentage Act|Article 6 - PROCEEDING TO ADJUDICATE PARENTAGE|Part 1 - Nature of Proceeding|Section 40-11A-602 - Standing to maintain proceeding.

Subject to Article 3 and Sections 6-607 and 6-609 of the New Mexico Uniform Parentage Act, a proceeding to adjudicate parentage may be maintained by: A. the child; B. the mother of the child; C. a man whose paternity of the child is to be adjudicated; D. the support-enforcement agency; E. an authorized adoption agency or licensed child-placing agency; or F. a representative authorized by law to act for a person who would otherwise be entitled to maintain a proceeding but who is deceased, incapacitated or a minor. History: Laws 2009, ch. 215, § 6-602. ANNOTATIONSEffective dates. — Laws 2009, ch. 215, § 20 made the New Mexico Uniform Parentage Act effective January 1, 2010. The "holding out" provision with regard to paternity applies to women. — Where petitioner and respondent, who both were women and who had a committed, long-term domestic relationship, agreed to bring a child into their relationship; respondent adopted a child; petitioner never adopted the child; petitioner supported respondent and the child financially, lived in the family home, held the child out as petitioner's natural child, and co-parented the child for a number of years before they dissolved their relationship; respondent sought to prevent petitioner from having any relationship with the child; and petitioner filed a petition to establish parentage and determine custody and timesharing of the child, petitioner was an interested party and had standing to file an action under 40-11-12 NMSA 1978 (repealed, see 40-11A-601 and 40-11A-602 NMSA 1978) to declare the existence of a mother and child relationship with respect to the child because petitioner, by holding the child out as petitioner's natural child and providing financial and emotional support to the child, was presumed to be a natural parent of the child under Subsection A(4) of 40-11-5 NMSA 1978 (repealed, see 40-11A-204 NMSA 1978). Chatterjee v. King, 2012-NMSC-019, 280 P.3d 283, rev'g 2011-NMCA-012,149 N.M. 625, 253 P.3d 915. A personal representative of a decedent's estate has standing as a representative authorized by law to bring an action to adjudicate parentage under 40-11A-602 NMSA 1978. Swift v. Bullington, 2013-NMCA-090, cert. denied, 2013-NMCERT-008. A personal representative has standing to bring an action to adjudicate parentage. — Where the decedent was the putative father of a child by respondent; the decedent died six months prior to the birth of the child; and petitioner was appointed as the personal representative of the estate of the decedent, petitioner had standing to bring an action to adjudicate the parentage of the child as a representative authorized by law to act for the decedent who would have been entitled to maintain a parentage proceeding. Swift v. Bullington, 2013-NMCA-090, cert. denied, 2013-NMCERT-008. Standing to bring action. — Twenty-year-old child was "interest party" entitled to bring action for paternity and past child support under the Uniform Parentage Act. State ex rel. Salazar v. Roybal, 1998-NMCA-093, 125 N.M. 471, 963 P.2d 548, cert. denied, 125 N.M. 322, 961 P.2d 167. Adult child. — The court was not required to apply the "best interests of the child" standard to an action for paternity and retroactive child support, where the child was over the age of majority and had not developed a close emotional bond with the presumed parent; moreover, the child, not the alleged father, is the party legally entitled to advance the "best interests" theory. Tedford v. Gregory, 1998-NMCA-067, 125 N.M. 206, 959 P.2d 540, cert. denied, 125 N.M. 147, 958 P.2d 105 . Noncustodial parent not general guardian. — A mother who did not have custody was not a "general guardian" with standing to challenge her former husband's paternity. Sparks ex rel. Haley v. Sparks, 1992-NMCA-132, 114 N.M. 764, 845 P.2d 858 (decided under prior law).