Hough v. Brooks, 34,572

Background

Parents (Mother, a teacher; Father, a wild-land firefighter) had four children; Father severely abused eldest child A.H. in 2012 (broken leg), pleaded no contest, was placed on probation and required to undergo counseling.
Father had little or no contact with the children for roughly two years after the incident; Mother moved with the children from Ruidoso, NM to Phoenix, AZ in mid‑2014 under a stipulated interim order that allowed relocation and provided Mother custody while Father received limited supervised visitation and phone/Skype contact.
Father filed for custody/visitation in March 2014; after hearings the district court (March 2015 parenting plan) awarded joint legal custody and named Father primary physical custodian during the school year, returning the children to Ruidoso beginning 2015‑2016.
The parenting plan contained no explicit findings that a substantial and material change in circumstances had occurred since the interim order, and did not analyze or apply the statutory "best interests" factors (including consideration of children’s wishes, A.H.’s expressed fear of Father, or impact of moving children again).
The Court of Appeals held the district court abused its discretion for (1) modifying an existing custody arrangement without finding a substantial and material change in circumstances as required by NMSA 40‑4‑9.1(A), (2) failing to perform the statutorily mandated best‑interests analysis (including 40‑4‑9 and 40‑4‑9.1(B) factors), and (3) issuing custody findings not supported by substantial evidence; it reversed and vacated the March 2015 parenting plan and instructed the district court to hold a new hearing and consider a GAL to plan an orderly transition.

Issues

Issue	Mother’s Argument	Father’s Argument	Held
Whether the district court could convert the stipulated interim sole‑custody arrangement into joint custody without finding a "substantial and material change in circumstances"	The stipulated interim order created an existing custody arrangement; statute requires a showing of substantial and material change before awarding joint custody	The interim order was not a final order, so modification did not require the statutory change‑of‑circumstances showing	Court: Section 40‑4‑9.1(A) applies to any existing custody arrangement (including durable interim orders); modification required a substantial and material change finding; district court abused discretion by not making one
Whether the district court made the statutorily required best‑interests findings and considered required factors before changing custody	Court must consider statutory best‑interest factors (40‑4‑9(A)) and additional joint‑custody factors (40‑4‑9.1(B)); Mother argued these were not addressed and A.H.’s wishes (age 14) were ignored	Father argued increased contact with him (and grandparents) served children’s interests; court broadly found relationship with Father/Grandparents should be fostered	Court: District court failed to apply or make findings on the statutory factors (children’s wishes, interaction/relationships, adjustment, mental/physical health, domestic abuse considerations, etc.) and thus abused its discretion
Whether the district court adequately considered domestic‑abuse history (A.H.’s injury and Father’s probation) when ordering custody to Father	Mother: prior abuse, probation restrictions, A.H.’s fear required careful analysis and protective findings under 40‑4‑9.1(B)(9)	Father: had conditional discharge and argued rehabilitation and family relationships warranted custody change	Court: Failure to analyze or make findings about abuse, probation, A.H.’s safety or whether ordered custody adequately protected A.H. was an abuse of discretion
Whether the district court’s custody findings were supported by substantial evidence	Mother: findings (alienation, lack of child adjustment in Phoenix, suitability of grandparents) not supported by record; children were doing well in Phoenix	Father: testimony claiming need for more school‑year time with him and grandparents’ availability	Court: Many factual findings contradicted undisputed evidence (e.g., Father’s prior absence caused limited contact; children were thriving in Phoenix); no substantial evidence supported the custody change

Key Cases Cited

Grant v. Cumiford, 137 N.M. 485, 112 P.3d 1142 (New Mexico Court of Appeals) (modification of custody requires showing of substantial change in circumstances)
Schuermann v. Schuermann, 94 N.M. 81, 607 P.2d 619 (N.M. 1980) (strong presumption favoring original custody arrangement; stability and continuity important)
Jaramillo v. Jaramillo, 113 N.M. 57, 823 P.2d 299 (N.M. 1991) (best‑interests standard is controlling inquiry in custody disputes)
Newhouse v. Chavez, 108 N.M. 319, 772 P.2d 353 (N.M. Ct. App.) (court must make findings addressing children’s relationships and statutory factors)
State v. Brown, 338 P.3d 1276 (N.M. 2014) (definition of substantial evidence standard)
In re Adoption of Doe, 100 N.M. 764, 676 P.2d 1329 (N.M. 1984) (courts will not entertain arguments unsupported by cited authority)