Court Opinion

ID: 9839662
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-13 18:07:14.702229+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:38:58.518743
License: Public Domain

This decision of the New Mexico Court of Appeals was not selected for publication in
the New Mexico Appellate Reports. Refer to Rule 12-405 NMRA for restrictions on the
citation of unpublished decisions. Electronic decisions may contain computer-
generated errors or other deviations from the official version filed by the Court of
Appeals.

          IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO

No. A-1-CA-41184

ANGELA KIM NATION,

       Petitioner-Appellee,

v.

ISAIAH DEREK ROYBAL,

       Respondent-Appellant.

APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF SAN MIGUEL COUNTY
Flora Gallegos, District Court Judge

Angela Kim Nation
Las Vegas, NM

Pro Se Appellee

Isaiah Derek Roybal
Las Vegas, NM

Pro Se Appellant

                               MEMORANDUM OPINION

MEDINA, Judge.

{1}     Respondent (Father), a self-represented litigant, appeals from the district court’s
order denying his motion to terminate his own parental rights. We issued a notice of
summary disposition, proposing to summarily affirm. Petitioner (Mother), also filing pro
se, filed a memorandum in support, and Father filed a memorandum in opposition
(MIO); Mother filed a response to the memorandum in opposition, and Father filed a
reply to Mother’s response. While we consider memoranda in support of our notice
under Rule 12-210(D)(2) NMRA, “our [R]ules of [A]ppellate [P]rocedure do not provide
for the filing of responses and replies back and forth between the parties to their
memoranda in support of, or in opposition to, a calendar notice.” Landavazo v. N.M.
Dep’t of Hum. Servs., 1988-NMCA-002, ¶ 5, 106 N.M. 715, 749 P.2d 538; see Rule 12-
210. Thus, we do not consider Mother’s response to Father’s MIO or Father’s reply
thereto in deciding this appeal. See Landavazo, 1988-NMCA-002, ¶ 5 (refusing to
consider the parties’ responses that were not contemplated by our rules). On the basis
of Mother’s memorandum in support and Father’s memorandum in opposition, we
remain unpersuaded that the district court erred and affirm.

{2}     In Father’s MIO to our notice, Father now raises alternative arguments: the
district court should restore his custody rights to Children [MIO 1-5, 8-11] or terminate
his parental rights [MIO 5-7]. Father’s arguments related to the restoration of his
custody rights were not raised in his docketing statement. [DS 4] New arguments raised
in response to a calendar notice are treated as a motion to amend. See Rule 12-
210(D)(2) (stating that “[t]he parties shall not argue issues that are not contained in
either the docketing statement or the statement of the issues,” but permitting the
appellant to move to amend the docketing statement upon good cause shown, which
can be combined with a memorandum in opposition).

{3}     In cases assigned to the summary calendar, this Court will grant a motion to
amend the docketing statement to include additional issues if the motion (1) is timely;
(2) states all facts material to a consideration of the new issues sought to be raised; (3)
explains how the issues were properly preserved or why they may be raised for the first
time on appeal; (4) demonstrates just cause by explaining why the issues were not
originally raised in the docketing statement; and (5) complies in other respects with the
appellate rules. See State v. Rael, 1983-NMCA-081, ¶¶ 7-8, 10-11, 14-17, 100 N.M.
193, 668 P.2d 309. This Court will deny motions to amend that raise issues that are not
viable, even if they allege fundamental or jurisdictional error. See State v. Moore, 1989-
NMCA-073, ¶¶ 36-51, 109 N.M. 119, 782 P.2d 91, superseded by rule on other grounds
as recognized in State v. Salgado, 1991-NMCA-044, ¶ 2, 112 N.M. 537, 817 P.2d 730.

{4}     Father does not explain how he preserved arguments relative to the restoration
of his custody rights in district court or the grounds for the district court’s rulings, if any
were made. The record suggests that Mother was granted sole and full custody of
Children without objection from Father. [RP 134-35] And, the record before us does not
contain any motion from Father seeking broader custody rights. [RP 172-73] We cannot
and will not decide such custody matters for the first time on appeal. State v. Druktenis,
2004-NMCA-032, ¶ 122, 135 N.M. 223, 86 P.3d 1050 (“[G]enerally, [we will not] address
issues not preserved below and raised for the first time on appeal.”). Father must seek
such relief from the district court in the first instance. For these reasons, we deny the
motion to amend the docketing statement and do not address this matter further. See
Moore, 1989-NMCA-073, ¶¶ 36-51; Rael, 1983-NMCA-081, ¶¶ 7-8; see also Rule 12-
208(D)(3), (4).

{5}    Relative to Father’s alternative desire to have his own parental rights terminated,
we remain unpersuaded that he has established district court error. Father’s admission
to unidentified acts underlying criminal charges of child abuse not resulting in great
bodily harm in exchange for entry into a preprosecution diversion program in a separate
case, without further detail or reason from Father, does not demonstrate that the district
court erred by refusing to terminate his parental rights under the Abuse and Neglect Act.
[MIO 6] See State v. Mondragon, 1988-NMCA-027, ¶ 10, 107 N.M. 421, 759 P.2d 1003
(stating that a party responding to a summary calendar notice must come forward and
specifically point out errors of law and fact, and explaining that the repetition of earlier
arguments does not fulfill this requirement), superseded by statute on other grounds as
stated in State v. Harris, 2013-NMCA-031, ¶ 3, 297 P.3d 374.

{6}   For the reasons stated above and in our notice, we affirm the district court’s order
denying the motion to terminate Father’s parental rights.

{7}    IT IS SO ORDERED.

JACQUELINE R. MEDINA, Judge

WE CONCUR:

MEGAN P. DUFFY, Judge

KATHERINE A. WRAY, Judge