Opinion ID: 2570341
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: New Mexico's Approach: Parents' and Child's Interests Are Best Protected Through An Equal Sharing of Burden

Text: The third approach that we consider today is illustrated in the New Mexico Supreme Court's decision in Jaramillo v. Jaramillo, 823 P.2d at 307-09, and was later adopted by the Maryland court of appeals in Braun v. Headley, 131 Md.App. 588, 750 A.2d 624, 635 (2000). The court in Jaramillo considered not only the majority time parent's right to travel and the state's concerns in protecting the best interests of the child, but also the minority time parent's right to maintain close association and frequent contact with the child. 823 P.2d at 304-06. In addressing how to allocate burdens to protect these competing concerns, the court first recognized the constitutional right to travel, holding that the protection afforded the right to travel in the child-custody context has been explicitly recognized by ... this Court. Id. However, the New Mexico court also acknowledged the equal right of a parent to maintain a close association with his or her child. By the same token, we believe that the other parent's right to maintain his or her close association and frequent contact with the child should be equally free from any unfavorable presumption that would place him or her under the burden of showing that the proposed removal of the child would be contrary to the child's best interests. `[F]reedom of personal choice in matters of family life is a fundamental liberty interest.' Id. at 305-06 (citing Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745, 753, 102 S.Ct. 1388, 71 L.Ed.2d 599 (1982)); see also Troxel, 530 U.S. 57, 65-66, 120 S.Ct. 2054, 147 L.Ed.2d 49 (2000)(holding that parents have a fundamental right to make decisions as to care, custody, and control of their children). In discussing whether to adopt a presumption in favor of either parent, the court noted that [n]either presumption, except by happenstance, serves the statutory goal ... of determining and implementing the best interests of the child. Id. at 307. The court also discussed criticisms of procedure by presumption: Procedure by presumption is always cheaper and easier than individualized determination. But when, as here, the procedure forecloses the determinative issues of competence and care, when it explicitly disdains present realities in deference to past formalities, it needlessly risks running roughshod over the important interests of both parent and child. It therefore cannot stand. Id. (citations omitted)(citing Stanley v. Illinois, 405 U.S. 645, 92 S.Ct. 1208, 31 L.Ed.2d 551 (1972)). As a result, the court held that: [A]llocating burdens and presumptions in this context does violence to both parents' rights, jeopardizes the true goal of determining what in fact is in the child's best interest, and substitutes procedural formalism for the admittedly difficult task of determining, on the facts, how best to accommodate the interests of all parties before the court, both parents and children. Id. at 305. Based on this conclusion, the court in Jaramillo adopted a rule that neither party is under a burden to prove which arrangement will best promote the child's interests; both parents share equally the burden of demonstrating how the child's best interests will be served. Id. at 308.