Tomlinson v. Weatherford
2017 NMCA 55
| N.M. Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Petitioner Carrie Tomlinson and Respondent Dana Weatherford, a former same-sex couple, sought to co-parent a child (R.W.) born in Oklahoma in 2007; Oklahoma appointed them co-guardians in 2007 and the family moved to New Mexico in 2008.
- Tomlinson filed a New Mexico petition (May 20, 2013) to determine parentage, custody, and timesharing after Weatherford cut off contact in 2012; Weatherford left New Mexico with R.W. and established residency in Oklahoma.
- Weatherford challenged New Mexico jurisdiction; the district court stayed or otherwise deferred proceedings pending action in the 2007 Oklahoma guardianship, which ultimately terminated the guardianship in Oklahoma without timely clarification in New Mexico.
- The New Mexico district court declined to exercise jurisdiction, stating disputes should be heard in Oklahoma, but entered no findings applying the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act (UCCJEA / "the Act") or UPA standards and made several factual findings immaterial to jurisdiction.
- Tomlinson sought interim visitation and a guardian ad litem (GAL); the appellate court ordered expedited consideration, but the district court delayed appointing a GAL and relied on a bonding study Tomlinson later criticized; Tomlinson had had no contact with R.W. for over two years by the time of the district court’s order.
- The Court of Appeals reversed and remanded, concluding New Mexico was R.W.’s home state at filing under the Act, the district court erred by deferring to Oklahoma without required findings and procedures, and the district court failed to follow statutory stay-and-direct-to-file procedures when declining jurisdiction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Tomlinson) | Defendant's Argument (Weatherford) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether New Mexico had jurisdiction under the UCCJEA/Act | New Mexico was R.W.’s home state at filing (lived there >6 months) so district court had exclusive initial jurisdiction | Oklahoma guardianship and Weatherford’s return to Oklahoma made Oklahoma the proper forum / New Mexico inconvenient | Reversed: New Mexico was the home state at filing; court erred to decline jurisdiction without applying §40-10A-207 factors and required findings |
| Whether the district court properly declined jurisdiction as an inconvenient forum | Declining required express consideration of Act factors and findings; court should not defer absent showing another state more appropriate | Argued New Mexico should decline because of Oklahoma proceedings and convenience | Reversed: court failed to apply statutory factors, failed to stay and direct filing in other state, and made no legal conclusions supporting declination |
| Whether district court’s factual findings (including merit findings) were supported and relevant to jurisdiction | Many findings were immaterial or addressed custody merits, not jurisdictional facts; these are surplusage | Court relied on facts favoring Weatherford to justify declination | Court treats immaterial merit findings as surplusage and disregards them for jurisdictional analysis |
| Whether Tomlinson’s due process / visitation and equal protection rights were violated by delays and failure to rule on interim visitation | Failure to address interim visitation deprived Tomlinson of liberty interests; procedures (GAL, bonding study) were defective | Respondent did not substantively contest constitutional claims on appeal | Appellate court did not decide constitutional claims as jurisdiction had to be resolved first; remanded for district court to address interim visitation, GAL appointment procedures, and UPA standing on remand |
Key Cases Cited
- Malissa C. v. Matthew Wayne H., 193 P.3d 569 (N.M. Ct. App. 2008) (discusses UCCJEA home-state priority and jurisdictional framework)
- Garcia v. Gutierrez, 217 P.3d 591 (N.M. 2009) (if a home state action is filed first, other states must stay or decline jurisdiction)
- Barnae v. Barnae, 943 P.2d 1036 (N.M. Ct. App. 1997) (prior CCJA-based analysis; court explains limits of applying pre-UCCJEA precedent)
- Crutchfield v. N.M. Dep’t of Taxation & Revenue, 106 P.3d 1273 (N.M. Ct. App. 2005) (mootness doctrine for appellate review)
- 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) (ignoring immaterial/irrelevant findings)
- Chatterjee v. King, 280 P.3d 283 (N.M. 2012) (standing under the Uniform Parentage Act)
- Chan v. Montoya, 256 P.3d 987 (N.M. Ct. App. 2011) (court should not rely on counsel’s assertions as evidence)