Opinion ID: 1450705
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: entitlement to disqualification.

Text: The disqualification statute applies to children's court proceedings and a party to a children's court proceeding is entitled to disqualify the children's court judge. Frazier v. Stanley, 83 N.M. 719, 497 P.2d 230 (1972). However, respondent claims that the district attorney is not a party and therefore cannot sign an effective affidavit of disqualification. Respondent's position is that if anyone is entitled to file a disqualification, it would be a juvenile probation officer. The district attorney claims, however, that the probation officer is an employee of the judiciary and cannot act on behalf of the State and is not a party to a children's court proceeding. Respondent bases his allegation that the children's court attorney is not a party to the proceeding on Sections 32-1-17, 32-1-18, and 32-1-5, N.M.S.A. 1978. The original statutory scheme of the Children's Code allowed persons other than the children's court attorney to sign a children's court petition. It required the children's court attorney to be notified of the filing of the petition and in certain circumstances required the children's court attorney to furnish legal services in connection with the presentation of the facts behind the petition. However, the rules of procedure for the children's court limit the signing of the petition to the children's court attorney, N.M.Child.R.P. 22(a), N.M.S.A. 1978 (Repl. Pamp. 1980), and give the children's court attorney the right to decide whether or not to file a petition after a petition request is made to that office. N.M.Child.R.P. 21, N.M.S.A. 1978 (Repl.Pamp. 1980). To the extent that the rules of procedure conflict with the statutory provisions, the rules control. State v. Jane Doe, 95 N.M. 302, 621 P.2d 519 (Ct.App. 1980). As the petitioner correctly points out, the State is a party to a children's court proceeding. N.M.Child.R.P. 9, N.M.S.A. 1978 (Repl.Pamp. 1980). Petitioner, relying on State v. Hay, 40 N.M. 370, 60 P.2d 353 (1936), also claims that an assistant district attorney is authorized to sign the affidavit of disqualification. In Hay, this Court recognized the authority of the Attorney General, on behalf of the State of New Mexico to execute an affidavit of disqualification directed at a trial judge. The respondent argues that the Court of Appeals in Coca v. New Mexico H. and S. Services Dept., 89 N.M. 558, 555 P.2d 381 (Ct.App. 1976), cert. denied 90 N.M. 8, 558 P.2d 620 (1976), interpreted the predecessor of this statute and the Hay case and held that an assistant attorney general could not file an effective disqualification. However, the affidavit in the Coca case was one in which the assistant attorney general stated that she believed that the judge could not act fairly and impartially. The Court of Appeals interpreted the affidavit as being personal to her rather than on behalf of the State or an agency of the State. In this case, the assistant district attorney stated in the affidavit: That the State of New Mexico is a party to this proceeding; that the State of New Mexico, through Danelle J. Smith, Assistant District Attorney and Children's Court Attorney for the Fourth Judicial District of the State of New Mexico, is of the belief that the Honorable Donaldo A. Martinez, District Judge, cannot preside over this case with impartiality and hereby disqualifies him from presiding further in this cause. The State is a party in proceedings on petitions alleging delinquency, need of supervision, or neglect. N.M.Child.R.P. 9, N.M.S.A. 1978 (Repl.Pamp. 1980). The children's court attorney may represent the State in any children's court proceeding. § 32-1-5, N.M.S.A. 1978. Any petition filed in children's court must be signed by the children's court attorney. N.M.Child.R.P. 22(a), N.M.S.A. 1978 (Repl.Pamp. 1980). Therefore, we hold that the power and duty to represent the State necessarily includes the authority to execute an affidavit of disqualification when done on behalf of the State. Otherwise, the State would effectively be denied the right to disqualify a judge.