Diamond v. Diamond
2012 NMSC 022
N.M.2012Background
- Daughter, then sixteen, petitioned in 2007 for emancipation under the Emancipation of Minors Act.
- Daughter had lived apart from Mother since age thirteen due to domestic violence and Mother’s boyfriend, supporting herself via work since age eleven.
- District court found Daughter able to manage her own finances and emancipated her in all respects except that she could seek support from Mother under §32A-21-5(D).
- Mother challenged the order, arguing emancipation removes parental support and questioning Daughter’s maturity.
- Support proceedings later proceeded, with a hearing officer and district court allowing post-emancipation support, leading to a substantial judgment against Mother for pre- and post-emancipation support.
- Court of Appeals held that New Mexico law does not permit emancipated minors to collect child support and endorsed a view that emancipation must be complete, prompting certiorari to the Supreme Court.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Act permits partial emancipation for one or more purposes | Diamond argues the Act allows partial emancipation for select purposes. | Diamond argues for a narrower construct where emancipation is all-or-nothing. | Yes; emancipation may be granted for one or more purposes. |
| Whether a court may reserve child support rights in an emancipation | Daughter seeks to retain the right to parental support while emancipated for other purposes. | Mother contends emancipation automatically ends support rights. | Emancipation may include a reservation of support rights. |
| Relation between managing financial affairs and receiving support | Managing finances and receiving parental support are not inherently incompatible. | Managing finances implies self-sufficiency, conflicting with ongoing support. | Managing finances does not require total financial self-sufficiency; support may continue where appropriate. |
| Public policy and statutory interpretation supporting tailored emancipation | Legislative history shows intent to tailor emancipation to best interests. | Partial emancipation risks absurd outcomes and undermines statutory clarity. | Plain language and legislative history support partial emancipation tailored to the minor. |
Key Cases Cited
- Jolley v. AEGIS, 148 N.M. 436 (2010-NMSC-029) (interpretation gives effect to plain language)
- Hovet v. Allstate Ins. Co., 135 N.M. 397 (2004-NMSC-010) (statutory interpretation standards)
- Maestas, 140 N.M. 836 (2007-NMSC-001) (legislative intent and plain meaning guidance)
- In re Conservatorship of Chisholm, 126 N.M. 584 (1999-NMCA-025) (concepts of managing financial affairs in guardianship contexts)
- Mason v. Mason, 84 N.M. 720 (1973) (emancipation under common law considerations)
- Fevig v. Fevig, 90 N.M. 51 (1977) (emancipation and parental duty of support preserved)