Court Opinion

ID: 9791640
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-31 02:15:04.399437+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:37:37.534928
License: Public Domain

MINZNER, Chief Judge (specially concurring). On motions for rehearing and following oral argument on the motions, I withdraw my prior opinion and substitute the following. I concur in all of Judge Apodaca’s opinion except the section entitled “Visitation.” On the issue discussed in that section, I agree with Judge Apodaca that the district court has some equitable power in adoption cases. Nevertheless, I do not think that the evidence supports an exercise of equitable power to award Vest visitation rights, and I agree with Judge Hartz that the portion of the district court’s judgment ordering visitation with Rita Vest should be reversed. Under the circumstances of this ease, I do not think it is necessary to determine the scope of the district court’s equitable power to grant visitation in an adoption proceeding. Therefore, I concur specially in the section entitled ‘Visitation.” I am not persuaded that the general principle expressed in NMSA 1978, Section 40-7-52 (Repl.Pamp.1989) is an absolute barrier to an award of visitation rights. The parties opposing visitation rights in Vest rely on language in Section 40-7-52 that “the child and the petitioner shall sustain the legal relation of parent and child as if the adoptee were the biological child of the petitioner.” I am not as sure what this language means as the parties opposing the visitation rights awarded to Vest seem to be. I think Judge Apodaca is right to suggest that the legislature probably contemplated establishing rights of inheritance by, from, and through adoptive parents and eliminating such rights by, from, and through biological parents. See Hahn v. Sorgen, 50 N.M. 83, 171 P.2d 308 (1946). I do not find what else the legislature intended clear. In enacting Section 40-7-52 the legislature may have had in mind the “parental right” doctrine. See Shorty v. Scott, 87 N.M. 490, 493, 535 P.2d 1341, 1344 (1975). “This rule creates a presumption that the welfare and best interests of the minor child will best be served in the custody of the natural parents and casts the burden of proving the contrary on the non-parent.” Id. Under that doctrine or rule, parents have a right to custody, but the right is not absolute. As a matter of constitutional law, parents have a fundamental right to custody. See In re Ronald A, 110 N.M. 454, 455, 797 P.2d 243, 244 (1990). Absent a finding of substantial harm, “the state lacks a sufficiently compelling justification for the infringement on the fundamental right of parents to raise their children as they see fit.” Hawk v. Hawk, 855 S.W.2d 573, 577 (Tenn.1993) (decided under Tennessee constitution). The legislature might be viewed as having analogized the relationship of an adoptive parent and the adoptee to the relationship of a biological parent and child in order to protect the same constitutional right. Nevertheless, the right is not absolute. See id. Further, in this case the question for the district court was whether to create the legal relationship. The legislature has directed that the court make that determination only after considering whether the adoption serves “the best interests of the adoptee.” See NMSA 1978, § 40-7-51(A)(7) (Repl.Pamp.1989); see also § 40-7-51(C). In an exceptional case, adoption might serve the adoptee’s best interests only if the status was conditioned on the adoptive parents’ recognizing the adoptee’s relationship with another person by agreeing to visitation rights in him or her. See, e.g., Morse v. Daly, 101 Nev. 320, 704 P.2d 1087 (1985). We recognized in AC. v. C.B., 113 N.M. 581, 829 P.2d 660 (Ct.App.), cert. denied, 113 N.M. 449, 827 P.2d 837 (1992), a limitation on a biological parent’s rights to custody of a child. We recognized in that case that an agreement to raise a child entered into between the child’s biological mother and another woman was not per se unenforceable. Id. at 584-87, 829 P.2d at 663-66. Further, both the Adoption Act, NMSA 1978, §§ 40-7-29 to -61 (Repl.Pamp.1989), and the Children’s Code, NMSA 1978, §§ 32-1-1 to -59 (Repl.Pamp.1989), seem to authorize limitations on a biological parent’s rights to custody. See, e.g., § 40-7-49(D) (authorizing the court to determine “in the best interests of the adoptee, the person who shall have custody,” if a consent or relinquishment by the adoptee’s mother or father is held invalid); see also § 40-7-51(0 (authorizing the court, after denying a petition for adoption, to determine “in the best interests of the adoptee” who shall have custody of the child); and § 32-1-58 (providing for permanent guardianship of a child when the likelihood of a child being adopted is remote or it is established that termination of parental rights is not in the child’s best interests; permanent guardianship grants guardian all rights and responsibilities of a parent, subject to rights of a natural or adoptive parent, if any, set forth in decree of permanent guardianship). For these reasons, I believe that Section 40-7-52 provides this Court with uncertain direction on the issues discussed under “Visitation.” Judge Hartz’ analysis of the Grandparents Visitation Act. NMSA 1978, §§ 40-9-1 to -4 (Repl.Pamp.1989), is harder to answer. However, the parties have argued a lack of jurisdiction or authority under the Adoption Act, see § 40-7-29, and Judge Apodaca makes a persuasive case that under our case law the district court retains some equitable powers in exercising its powers under the Adoption Act. See N.M. Const, art. VI, § 13 (district court has original jurisdiction in all matters); Durham v. Rasco, 30 N.M. 16, 227 P. 599 (1924) (original equity jurisdiction is in district courts). Although I agree with Judge Hartz that the legislature still has the last word, I am not sure he is right that the legislature has spoken on this issue. Had our legislature been as explicit as the Nevada legislature, which has now provided within its Adoption Act a provision that “[t]he court may not grant a right to visit the child to any person other than as specified ...,” see Nev.Rev.Stat.Ann. § 127.171(2) (Michie 1993), our task and that of the district court would have been easier. But the New Mexico legislature has not been that explicit. Rather, in the Grandparents Visitation Act, the legislature has provided for visitation rights in grandparents and has also provided that those rights apply to certain statutory adoption proceedings. The legislature has provided clear authority for the district court to grant such rights in situations that lie within the terms of the statute. Thus, in the Grandparents Visitation Act, the legislature has provided grandparents a clear basis on which to petition and specific directions on how a district court is to review the petition. I am not persuaded that on particular facts, in a unique case, the legislature meant to foreclose a district court from determining that post-adoption visitation rights were appropriate in circumstances not specifically provided for in either the Grandparents Visitation Act or the Adoption Act. The Grandparents Visitation Act does not by its terms foreclose visitation rights in persons other than grandparents nor does it specifically provide, as does the Nevada statute, that there is no power or authority to grant visitation rights in statutory adoption proceedings other than those specifically mentioned. Judge Hartz concludes that the legislature’s intent is clear. Although I agree that what the legislature intended to authorize is clearly stated, I am not convinced that the legislature intended to forbid a district court from proceeding in a child’s best interests in an appropriate case. I do not believe that the difference between expressly precluding a court from acting and expressly authorizing a court to act is irrelevant, and I am reluctant to infer a restriction on a district court’s jurisdiction or power to act in a child’s best interests. Thus, I agree with Judge Apodaca that the district court has some equitable power in adoption cases. Nevertheless, I do not think that the evidence adduced, as reflected by the record, supports an exercise of equitable power to award Vest visitation rights. In coming to this position, I am influenced by several factors. The first factor is that there is little evidence to support a finding that a general order awarding reasonable visitation rights is in the children’s best interests. See Judge Hartz’ opinion, at 1188-1189 n. 2. In fact, the findings entered by the district court provide a much more limited view of what it was prepared to authorize than the final judgment suggests. The district court, for example, repeatedly emphasizes the boys’ wishes and seems to me to limit what is being ordered to visitation rights as they wish. Cf. In re Adoption of Children by F., 170 N.J.Super. 419, 406 A.2d 986 (1979) (preserving visitation with natural father at daughters’ election). Thus, I think we lack the kind of findings that would support a conclusion that this case was an appropriate exercise of any equitable powers that exist in a district court under the Adoption Act. I think what moved the district court was HSD’s conduct in removing the boys from Vest when and as it did. I agree with the guardian ad litem that the children’s best interests at the time the judgment of adoption was entered must be controlling. The findings do not clearly establish that visitation rights were in the boys’ best interests at that time. The second factor is that Vest never requested visitation, but rather sought adoptive parent status for herself. Competing petitions for adoption were filed, and as the guardian ad litem points out in her response to Vest’s motion for rehearing, Vest continues to press the merits of her own petition for adoption. Thus, I am not certain how visitation rights will work. This situation seems potentially more disruptive than natural parents retaining visitation rights after termination of other rights or grandparents seeking visitation rights with a grandchild adopted by a stepparent, which are the more common situations in which other courts have acted without express statutory language. Finally, Vest seems to premise her right to visitation, as she does her right to adoptive status, on a status as “psychological parent.” I find that argument very appealing. However, Vest offered findings to the effect that she had become a “psychological parent” as a result of the bonding that occurred during foster care, which the district court rejected. I think this means that the court found against Vest and rejected her premise. At oral argument on the motion for rehearing, Vest argued that the authority to grant the adoption petition she filed provided a basis for awarding her visitation rights, but as Judge Apodaca’s opinion indicates, Vest failed to state a claim for adoption for which the court could grant relief. We cannot find authority to grant visitation rights solely from the court’s jurisdiction to entertain the adoption petition. The statute specifically requires consideration of the child’s best interests in awarding custody if an adoption petition is denied. See § 40-7-51(C). It would be illogical to require less of a showing to authorize visitation rights when a petition to adopt has been granted to another party. Vest also argued at the oral argument on the motions for rehearing that the district court did not reject her findings regarding her status as a psychological parent. Her counsel referred us to the district court’s decision letter. I respect counsel’s advocacy, but I do not believe that the decision letter supports the argument. The district court’s letter indicates “[t]he actions of the New Mexico Human Service Department in connection with this adoption have shocked the Court.” The court expresses regret that in not giving the children to Vest it must “deprive her of the joy she should be entitled to for providing for these children when they needed it most.” The court also states that “[t]he best interests of the children are best served if the children’s lives are not disrupted any further.” I view the letter as supporting the decision to grant the Runyons’ petition to adopt. It does not seem to me to support Vest’s argument that she was a psychological parent. In summary, I think the district court should be reversed, not for lack of jurisdiction or specific statutory authority, but for lack of findings to support the only basis Vest offered to support the award. We probably did not need to decide all of the more difficult issues raised under the heading “Visitation,” but in view of the importance of these issues, I do not think it is inappropriate to resolve those issues upon which two of us agree. Thus, I concur in all of Judge Apodaca’s opinion except the section entitled “Visitation.” Because I agree with Judge Apodaca that the district court retains some equitable powers to award visitation under the Adoption Act, and because I agree that there is no basis in this record to affirm the district court’s decision granting visitation rights to Vest, I specially concur.