Chatterjee v. King
2012 NMSC 019
N.M.2012Background
- Chatterjee and King were in a long-term relationship and jointly planned to raise a child.
- King adopted Child from Russia with Chatterjee’s financial and co-parenting involvement; Chatterjee did not adopt.
- After their relationship ended, King relocated to Colorado and sought to restrict Chatterjee’s contact with Child.
- Chatterjee filed a petition to establish parentage and determine custody/timesharing, asserting she was a presumed natural parent and an equitable/de facto parent.
- District court dismissed the petition for failure to state a claim; Court of Appeals partially affirmed, ruling Chatterjee lacked standing absent unfitness, and remanded regarding visitation.
- Supreme Court held that a natural mother can have standing under the Uniform Parentage Act (UPA) by applying the hold-out presumption to women, reversing and remanding for further proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| May a woman establish parentage as an interested party under 40-11-21 by applying the hold-out presumption of 40-11-5(A)(4)? | Chatterjee alleges she held Child out as her own and had a substantial parent–child relationship. | UPA presumption apply to fathers only; motherhood must be proven by biology or adoption. | Yes; 40-11-5(A)(4) applies to women, giving Chatterjee standing. |
| Should UPA father–child provisions apply to women when practicable under 40-11-21? | Provisions are applicable to mothers as far as practicable; applying them to women is consistent with the statute and policy. | Applying paternal provisions to women expands parental rights beyond legislative intent. | Yes; apply provisions to women when practicable. |
| Is the term 'natural mother' synonymous with 'biological mother' in NM UPA for holding-out purposes? | Natural motherhood can be shown by holding out and relationships, not solely biology. | Natural mother should be limited to biological connection. | No; 'natural mother' is not limited to biological status; holding-out can establish parentage. |
| If Chatterjee establishes a parent–child relationship, does she have standing to seek joint custody under the Dissolution of Marriage Act? | If parentage is established, she is a natural parent with standing to seek joint custody. | Without a biological/adoptive link, she lacks standing under 40-4-9.1(K). | Yes; standing follows from established parentage under NM UPA. |
| Should biology rebut a holding-out presumption, and when is rebuttal appropriate? | Rebuttal should be limited and context-specific, especially when child’s best interests are at stake. | Biology can rebut presumptions when appropriate. | Rebuttal only in appropriate actions; broad rebuttal absent other factors is limited. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Estate of DeLara, 131 P.3d 198 (N.M. Ct. App. 2002) (broad 'interested party' approach to UPA)
- Sisneroz v. Polanco, 126 N.M. 779, 975 P.2d 392 (N.M. Ct. App. 1999) (fact-specific standing under UPA)
- Tedford v. Gregory, 125 N.M. 206, 959 P.2d 540 (N.M. Ct. App. 1998) (best interests in paternity context)
- Lane v. Lane, 121 N.M. 414, 912 P.2d 290 (N.M. Ct. App. 1996) (holding-out presumption analyzed under UPA)
- Elisa B. v. Superior Court, 117 P.3d 660 (Cal. 2005) (holding-out presumption applied to women)