Tomlinson v. Weatherford
34,610 35,853
| N.M. Ct. App. | Apr 19, 2017Background
- Petitioner Carrie Tomlinson and Respondent Dana Weatherford were partners who jointly petitioned for co-guardianship of their child R.W. in Oklahoma (2007); they moved to New Mexico in 2008.
- Petitioner filed a New Mexico petition (May 20, 2013) to determine parentage, custody, and timesharing; Respondent left New Mexico with R.W. and re-established residency in Oklahoma.
- Respondent contested New Mexico jurisdiction; the district court stayed proceedings pending action in Oklahoma and later declined jurisdiction, directing disputes to Oklahoma without making required Act-based findings.
- Petitioner sought interim visitation; the district court delayed appointment of a guardian ad litem (GAL) and relied on a bonding study and GAL recommendation without full party participation.
- The Court of Appeals reversed, holding New Mexico was R.W.’s home state at filing under the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act (UCCJEA/Act) and remanded for proper findings, GAL procedures, and resolution of standing under the Uniform Parentage Act.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether New Mexico had jurisdiction under the Act | Tomlinson: New Mexico was R.W.’s home state at time of filing, so it had exclusive initial custody jurisdiction | Weatherford: Oklahoma guardianship and her return made Oklahoma the proper forum; New Mexico was an inconvenient forum | Held: New Mexico was the home state at filing; district court erred in declining jurisdiction without Act-required findings |
| Whether district court erred by making merits findings when only jurisdiction was before it | Tomlinson: Court should decide jurisdiction first and not resolve merits | Weatherford: (implicit) factual findings supported decline | Held: Many findings were immaterial surplusage and some improperly addressed merits; they may be disregarded |
| Whether court properly declined jurisdiction under inconvenient-forum or unjustifiable-conduct provisions of the Act | Tomlinson: Court did not apply or make findings under §40-10A-207/208 and failed to stay and direct filing elsewhere | Weatherford: Claimed Oklahoma was more appropriate given prior guardianship and relocation | Held: Court failed to apply statutory factors or enter conclusions; reversal and remand required for proper analysis and, if declining, required stay/direct filing |
| Whether Petitioner’s due process / interim visitation and equal protection rights were violated | Tomlinson: District court’s delay and failure to rule on interim visitation deprived her parental liberty; decision reflected discrimination against same-sex parent | Weatherford: No developed response on appeal | Held: Court did not reach constitutional claims because jurisdiction must be resolved first; remand required so court can address standing, interim relief, and merits; noted procedural deficiencies (GAL, bonding study) that may have affected process |
Key Cases Cited
- Malissa C. v. Matthew Wayne H., 193 P.3d 569 (N.M. Ct. App. 2008) (prioritizing home-state jurisdiction under the Act)
- Garcia v. Gutierrez, 217 P.3d 591 (N.M. 2009) (if home state files first, other states must stay or decline jurisdiction)
- Barnae v. Barnae, 943 P.2d 1036 (N.M. Ct. App. 1997) (prior statute analysis; court distinguishes here because Act standards differ)
- Chatterjee v. King, 280 P.3d 283 (N.M. 2012) (standing under the Uniform Parentage Act)
- Crutchfield v. N.M. Dep’t of Taxation & Revenue, 106 P.3d 1273 (N.M. Ct. App. 2005) (mootness doctrine)
- Rosen v. Lantis, 938 P.2d 729 (N.M. Ct. App. 1997) (immaterial findings may be treated as surplusage)
- Tome Land & Improvement Co. v. Silva, 519 P.2d 1024 (N.M. 1973) (ignore immaterial findings)