2023 New Mexico Statutes › Chapter 32A - Children's Code › Article 1 - General Provisions › Section 32A-1-8 - Jurisdiction of the court; tribal court jurisdiction; exception.

A. The court has exclusive original jurisdiction of all proceedings under the Children's Code in which a person is eighteen years of age or older and was a child at the time the alleged act in question was committed or is a child alleged to be:
(1) a delinquent child;
(2) a child of a family in need of court-ordered services or a child in need of services pursuant to the Family in Need of Court-Ordered Services Act [Chapter 32A, Article 3B NMSA 1978];
(3) a neglected child;
(4) an abused child;
(5) a child subject to adoption; or
(6) a child subject to placement for a developmental disability or a mental disorder.
B. The court has exclusive original jurisdiction to emancipate a minor.
C. The provisions of the Indian Family Protection Act [32A-28-1 to 32A-28-42 NMSA 1978] govern child custody proceedings involving Indian children. To the extent the provisions of the Indian Family Protection Act conflict with the Children's Code, the provisions of the Indian Family Protection Act shall apply.
D. During abuse or neglect proceedings in which New Mexico is the home state, pursuant to the provisions of the Uniform Child-Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act [40-10A-101 to 40-10A-403 NMSA 1978], the court shall have jurisdiction over both parents to determine the best interest of the child and to decide all matters incident to the court proceedings.
E. The court may acquire jurisdiction over a Motor Vehicle Code [Articles 1 through 8 of Chapter 66 NMSA 1978] or municipal traffic code violation as set forth in Section 32A-2-29 NMSA 1978.
History:
1978 Comp., § 32A-1-8, enacted by Laws 1993, ch. 77, § 17; 1995, ch. 206, § 5; 1999, ch. 46, § 1; 1999, ch. 78, § 1; 2005, ch. 189, § 4; 2009, ch. 239, § 8; 2022, ch. 41, § 45.
ANNOTATIONS
Cross references.
— For the Uniform Child-Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act,
see
40-10A-101 NMSA 1978 et seq.
For the federal Indian Child Welfare Act of 1978,
see
25 U.S.C. § 1901 et seq.
The 2022 amendment,
effective July 1, 2022, provided that the provisions of the Indian Family Protection Act govern child custody proceedings involving Indian children, and removed provisions pertaining to custody issues involving Indian children; in the section heading, added "exception"; added a new Subsection C and redesignated former Subsection C as Subsection D; deleted former Subsections D and E; and redesignated former Subsection F as Subsection E.
Applicability.
— Laws 2022, ch. 41, § 73 provided that the provisions of Laws 2022, ch. 41 apply to all cases filed on or after July 1, 2022.
The 2009 amendment,
effective July 1, 2009, added Subsection F.
The 2005 amendment,
effective June 17, 2005, provided in Subsection A that the court has jurisdiction of a child in need of court-ordered services or in need of services pursuant to the Family in Need of Services Act.
The 1999 amendment,
effective July 1, 1999, in Subsection E, deleted "that is not subject to the provisions of the Children's Mental Health and Developmental Disabilities Act and" following "Indian child" in the second sentence, and added the last three sentences. Laws 1999, ch. 46, § 1, effective July 1, 1999, enacted identical amendments to this section. The section was set out as amended by Laws 1999, ch. 78, § 1.
See
12-1-8 NMSA 1978.
The 1995 amendment,
effective July 1, 1995, added "tribal court jurisdiction" to the section heading; in Subsection B, deleted "under other laws which will be controlled by provisions of the other laws without regard to provisions of the Children's Code"; in Subsection C, deleted "children's" preceding "court"; and added Subsection E.
Decisions under prior law.
— In light of the similarity of the provisions, annotations decided under former Section 32-1-9 NMSA 1978 have been included in the annotations to this section.
Municipal curfew ordinance.
— The children's court has exclusive original jurisdiction of all proceedings under the Children's Code involving a child alleged to be delinquent, neglected, abused, or a child of a family in need of services. Through these provisions, the legislature clearly intended to protect and preserve the legal rights of children in New Mexico. This language does not prohibit municipalities from drafting ordinances that proscribe specific conduct of children which is unlawful if committed by adults, however, the procedures within the Children's Code control the manner in which children may be taken into custody, taken into protective custody, or adjudicated. A municipal curfew, which attempted to criminalize behavior involving juveniles, and a program, which purportedly took children into protective custody, implicated the Children's Code procedures and protections.
ACLU v. City of Albuquerque
, 1999-NMSC-044, 128 N.M. 315, 992 P.2d 866.
Children's court is empowered to enter injunction
conducive to purposes of Children's Code.
In re Doe
, 1983-NMCA-025, 99 N.M. 517, 660 P.2d 607.
District court has jurisdiction in guardianship, paternity and parental rights disputes.
— The district court, whether or not sitting as children's court, has jurisdiction over disputes concerning guardianship, paternity and termination of parental rights.
In re Arnall
, 1980-NMSC-052, 94 N.M. 306, 610 P.2d 193.
Section 40-10-15A(1) NMSA 1978 is in pari materia
with this section because both deal with jurisdiction of the children's court; and, being in pari materia, they are to be construed together, if possible, to give effect to the provisions of both statutes. The construction that this section gives the children's court the exclusive jurisdiction to act and that Section 40-10-15A(1) NMSA 1978 limits when that authority is to be exercised, gives effect to both statutes.
State ex rel. Dep't of Human Servs. v. Avinger
, 1985-NMCA-097, 104 N.M. 355, 721 P.2d 781,
aff'd
, 1986-NMSC-032, 104 N.M. 255, 720 P.2d 290 (decided under prior law).
Section 40-10-15A NMSA 1978 limits the court's exercise of jurisdiction in a "neglected child" proceeding if that proceeding could result in the modification of another state's custody decree if the other state has not given up jurisdiction.
State ex rel. Dep't of Human Servs. v. Avinger
, 1986-NMSC-032, 104 N.M. 255, 720 P.2d 290 (decided under prior law).
Subsection B of former Section 32-1-9 NMSA 1978 did not limit district court's jurisdiction.
— The words "exclusive original jurisdiction" used in Subsection B of former Section 32-1-9 NMSA 1978 (now Section 32A-1-8 NMSA 1978) were not intended to limit or abrogate the jurisdiction of the district court.
In re Arnall
, 1980-NMSC-052, 94 N.M. 306, 610 P.2d 193.
Neglect proceeding is not bar to termination proceeding.
— A prior proceeding concerned with the fact of neglect is not a jurisdictional bar to a later, separate termination proceeding.
In re Doe
, 1982-NMCA-115, 98 N.M. 442, 649 P.2d 510,
overruled by
State v. Roper
, 1996-NMCA-073, 122 N.M. 126, 921 P.2d 322.
Jurisdiction to be affirmatively established when defendant's minority at issue.
— Exclusive original jurisdiction over juveniles under 18 years of age is vested in the children's court and where the minority of the defendant appears during the course of the trial, the jurisdiction of the trial court must, at that point, be affirmatively established.
Trujillo v. Cox
, 1965-NMSC-050, 75 N.M. 257, 403 P.2d 696.
Jurisdiction over persons contributing to delinquency of minor.
— Insofar as the juvenile law purported to confer "exclusive original jurisdiction" on juvenile (now children's) courts over persons contributing to the delinquency of juveniles it was invalid since the constitution vested sole and exclusive jurisdiction for the trial of all felony cases in the district courts.
State v. McKinley
, 1949-NMSC-010, 53 N.M. 106, 202 P.2d 964.
Age references are to years of age, not mental age.
— The numerous references to age in the Children's Code are references to years of age, not mental age.
State v. Doe
, 1982-NMCA-028, 97 N.M. 598, 642 P.2d 201, cert. denied, 98 N.M. 50, 644 P.2d 1039.
Effect of petition alleging child in need of supervision.
— A child in need of supervision means a child in need of care or rehabilitation, and where the petition alleged that the child was in need of supervision, there was no merit to the claim that the petition was jurisdictionally deficient.
In re Doe
, 1975-NMCA-131, 88 N.M. 505, 542 P.2d 1195.
Vested with sole jurisdiction.
— The sole jurisdiction over juveniles in the state of New Mexico has been vested in the juvenile (now children's) court. 1959 Op. Att'y Gen. No. 59-131.
Jurisdiction of other courts.
— There is no limitation in the Children's Code providing that only children's courts may issue subpoenas to children. Therefore, if a witness fails to appear as ordered, the court with jurisdiction over the case may issue a bench warrant for that witness' arrest, whether or not that witness is a child. 1989 Op. Att'y Gen. No. 89-14.
Legal proceedings to prevent withholding of medical treatment.
— The state of New Mexico has authority under state law to pursue any legal remedies, including the authority to initiate legal proceedings in a court of competent jurisdiction, as may be necessary to prevent the withholding of medically indicated treatment from disabled infants with life-threatening conditions. 1985 Op. Att'y Gen. No. 85-05.
Being found within county without more, held not to suffice.
— Juveniles who are merely found within a county in which a particular juvenile (now children's) court has jurisdiction, but who are not otherwise within the provisions of the code, may not be held. For a child under 18 years of age to be within the provisions of the Juvenile Code (now Children's Code) so as to permit him to be taken into custody and lawfully held requires that the juvenile shall have fallen into one of the following situations: (1) violated a law of the state or ordinance or regulation of a political subdivision of the state; (2) has by habitual disobedience of parental or other authority become habitually disobedient, wayward or uncontrollable; (3) is habitually truant from home or school; and (4) habitually deports himself in a manner to injure or endanger the morals, health or welfare of himself or others. 1959 Op. Att'y Gen. No. 59-52 (rendered under prior law).
Juvenile to be cited to children's court by police officer.
— No town or city police officer may knowingly cite a juvenile offender into any court other than the juvenile (now children's) court; and if a juvenile is mistakenly cited into any other court, the case must be transferred to the juvenile (now children's) court. That court may, in its discretion, allow the juvenile to be treated as an adult, and taken before another court of competent jurisdiction, but all cases of traffic violations by juveniles must first be submitted to the juvenile (now children's) court, as that court has exclusive original jurisdiction. 1960 Op. Att'y Gen. No. 60-199.
Apprehension for violation of state law or prohibited habitual conduct.
— Juvenile Code (now Children's Code) does not authorize the apprehension and holding of juveniles unless a state law is violated or the juvenile is charged with habitual conduct specifically prohibited. 1959 Op. Att'y Gen. No. 59-52 (rendered under prior law).
Allegation of habitual conduct by officer.
— It is a practical impossibility for an apprehending officer to truthfully allege habitual conduct in the case of a runaway, except, of course, where the juvenile's past record is, in fact, known and can be presented. 1959 Op. Att'y Gen. No. 59-52 (rendered under prior law).
Law reviews.
— For comment, "The Freedom of the Press vs. The Confidentiality Provisions in the New Mexico Children's Code,"
see
4 N.M.L. Rev. 119 (1973).
For survey, "Children's Court Practice in Delinquency and Need of Supervision Cases Under the New Rules,"
see
6 N.M.L. Rev. 331 (1976).
For comment, "Navajo Grandparents - 'Parent' or 'Stranger' - A Child Custody Determination,"
see
9 N.M.L. Rev. 187 (1978-79).
For article, "Children's Waiver of Miranda Rights and the Supreme Court's Decisions in Parham, Bellotti, and Fare,"
see
10 N.M.L. Rev. 379 (1980).
For article, "Full Faith and Credit, Comity, or Federal Mandate? A Path That Leads to Recognition and Enforcement of Tribal Court Orders, Tribal Protection Orders, and Tribal Child Custody Orders",
see
34 N.M.L. Rev. 381 (2004).
Am. Jur. 2d, A.L.R. and C.J.S. references.
— 47 Am. Jur. 2d Juvenile Courts and Delinquent and Dependent Children § 36 et seq.
Marriage as affecting jurisdiction of juvenile court over delinquent or dependent children, 14 A.L.R.2d 336.
Civil or criminal nature of proceedings, 43 A.L.R.2d 1128.
Homicide by juvenile as within jurisdiction of juvenile court, 48 A.L.R.2d 663.
Age of child at time of alleged offense or delinquency, or at time legal proceedings are commenced, as criterion of jurisdiction of juvenile court, 89 A.L.R.2d 506.
Jurisdiction or power of juvenile court to order parent of juvenile to make restitution for juvenile's offense, 66 A.L.R.4th 985.
State court's authority, in marital or child custody proceeding, to allocate federal income tax dependency exemption for child to noncustodial parent under § 152(e) of the Internal Revenue Code (26 USCS § 152(e)), 77 A.L.R.4th 786.
43 C.J.S. Infants § 6.