Diamond v. Diamond
245 P.3d 578
N.M. Ct. App.2010Background
- Daughter petitioned for EMA emancipation at age 16, was living independently, working, and maintaining good grades.
- Emancipation order issued March 9, 2007; courts reserved Daughter's right to receive child support from Mother; Mother did not appeal.
- Nearly a year later, Daughter sought parentage and support under the UPA; district court found Daughter emancipated and awarded support.
- District court awarded pre-emancipation and post-emancipation child support; Mother appealed both the post-emancipation award and related rulings.
- This appeal consolidated two district court cases; issue is whether an emancipated minor may receive post-emancipation support and whether pre-emancipation support via the UPA is proper.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Post-emancipation support to emancipated minor | Daughter argues EMA allows post-emancipation support. | Mother argues EMA/DM bars post-emancipation support to emancipated minor. | Post-emancipation support not permitted. |
| UPA as vehicle for retroactive pre-emancipation support | Daughter claims UPA valid to grant retroactive support prior to emancipation. | Mother contends UPA improper since parentage not disputed under UPA. | UPA appropriate; retroactive pre-emancipation support affirmed. |
| Validity of emancipation order reserving support | Mother argues emancipation order void for lack of jurisdiction to reserve support. | Daughter contends EMA allows reservation of support. | District court had jurisdiction; order not void; interpretation of EMA proper. |
| Harmonization of EMA and DM statutes | Daughter reads EMA §32A-21-5 as allowing selective emancipation benefits. | Mother argues statutory provisions create a coherent whole, not a menu. | Read in harmony; EMA does not support partial emancipation benefits; post-emancipation support reversed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Mason v. Mason, 84 N.M. 720 (1973) (parental duty to support children in minority; emancipation may relieve duty earlier)
- State ex rel. Terry v. Terry, 80 N.M. 185 (1969) (emancipation may relieve parental support obligation before majority)
- Phelps v. Phelps, 85 N.M. 62 (1973) (original jurisdiction; proper application of statutes, not jurisdictional defect)
- Pub. Serv. Co. v. N.M. Pub. Util. Comm'n, 128 N.M. 309 (1999) (read statutes in pari materia; harmonize related provisions)
- State v. Trujillo, 146 N.M. 14 (2009) (statutory interpretation with plain meaning tempered by common sense)
- Tedford v. Gregory, 125 N.M. 206 (1998) (UPA allows retroactive child support for periods before emancipation)
- Zabolzadeh v. Zabolzadeh, 146 N.M. 125 (2009) (UPA use limited when paternity adjudicated; distinguishable fact pattern)