Perea v. Paulino, 34,348

Background

Mother (Geraldine Perea) filed a New Mexico custody petition for two sons on July 7, 2014; Father (Roman Paulino) filed in North Carolina on July 18, 2014. Courts held a joint videoconference hearing on August 15, 2014 to determine jurisdiction under the UCCJEA.
Findings (unchallenged on appeal): the children had primarily lived in North Carolina from December 2011 through mid-2014; North Carolina was their home state; the children were in North Carolina on July 7, 2014 and thereafter.
Mother alleged past physical abuse by Father during the proceedings and argues New Mexico should have exercised temporary emergency jurisdiction or held a full evidentiary hearing on the abuse allegations.
The New Mexico court (and North Carolina court, nunc pro tunc) concluded North Carolina had initial custody jurisdiction under the UCCJEA and dismissed the New Mexico proceeding for lack of jurisdiction.
New Mexico court declined to exercise temporary emergency jurisdiction under UCCJEA § 204 because the children were not present in New Mexico when Mother filed; Mother appealed, raising three primary issues.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether New Mexico should have applied temporary emergency jurisdiction (UCCJEA §204) sua sponte	Perea: court should have sua sponte recognized §204 given her abuse allegations and exercised temporary jurisdiction	Paulino/New Mexico: §204 requires the child be present in the forum; children were in NC so NM lacked §204 jurisdiction	Held: NM lacked temporary emergency jurisdiction because children were not present in NM; no sua sponte duty to invoke §204
Whether a full evidentiary hearing on abuse was required before declining jurisdiction	Perea: NM should have held a full hearing on abuse to assess emergency jurisdiction	Paulino/New Mexico: court properly focused on jurisdictional predicates (home state/child presence) before any abuse inquiry	Held: No; court correctly resolved jurisdictional predicates first and had no authority to hold a full evidentiary hearing once preconditions failed
Whether public policy requires considering domestic violence evidence in every jurisdictional custody proceeding	Perea: public policy demands domestic-violence evidence be considered in all custody jurisdiction determinations	Paulino/New Mexico: UCCJEA provides mechanisms but limits which state may act; policy cannot override statutory jurisdictional limits	Held: Rejected; public policy does not override statutory jurisdictional requirements—domestic-violence concerns must be addressed in the state with initial jurisdiction
Whether North Carolina was the children’s home state (threshold for initial jurisdiction under UCCJEA §201)	Perea: implied challenge to NM disposition	Paulino/New Mexico: evidence supports NC as home state	Held: NC was the children’s home state; NM lacked initial custody jurisdiction under UCCJEA §201

Key Cases Cited

Seipert v. Johnson, 134 N.M. 394, 77 P.3d 298 (N.M. Ct. App. 2003) (unchallenged trial findings are binding on appeal)
Ottino v. Ottino, 130 N.M. 168, 21 P.3d 37 (N.M. Ct. App. 2001) (jurisdictional questions reviewed de novo)
Santa Fe Expl. Co. v. N.M. Oil Conservation Comm’n, 114 N.M. 103, 835 P.2d 819 (N.M. 1992) (appellate courts may decline to consider arguments unsupported by record citations)
In re Marriage of Fernandez-Abin, 120 Cal. Rptr. 3d 227 (Cal. Ct. App. 2011) (interpreting California’s UCCJEA temporary emergency jurisdiction—conditions include child presence)
Saavedra v. Schmidt, 96 S.W.3d 533 (Tex. App. 2002) (Texas UCCJEA case concluding temporary emergency jurisdiction requires child’s presence)