Tue Thi Tran v. Bennett
411 P.3d 345
| N.M. | 2018Background
- Child born in 2003 while Mother was married to Bennett; Bennett’s name was on the birth certificate though DNA later showed a 99.8% probability that Demmon is the biological father.
- Demmon intervened in the 2006 divorce/paternity proceedings; parties mediated and executed a 2007 memorandum of agreement that (a) provided for modifying the birth certificate to list Demmon as legal father and (b) described Mother, Demmon, and Bennett as “co-parents,” with visitation for Bennett.
- The district court adopted the memorandum as a stipulated order in 2007; divorce between Mother and Bennett finalized in 2008.
- After disputes over vacation/visitation, the court in 2011 declined to hold Bennett in contempt but later (post-winter-break dispute) held Mother and Demmon in contempt and awarded Bennett attorney’s fees.
- A 2012 parenting order awarded joint legal custody to Mother, Demmon, and Bennett; an amended 2016 order (not appealed) awarded sole legal custody to Mother and Demmon and preserved visitation for Bennett.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Who is Child’s legal father under the UPA? | Demmon: DNA + intervention support adjudication of paternity in his favor. | Bennett: marriage presumption and delay in obtaining a court adjudication favor upkeep of birth-certificate father. | Demmon is legal father; 2007 stipulated order adopting the mediated agreement effectively adjudicated paternity under the original UPA. |
| Whether the 2007 memorandum could create three legal parents / give Bennett parental/custodial rights | Mother/Demmon: memorandum cannot confer parentage on a non-parent; parental-preference protects parents’ rights. | Bennett: ‘‘co-parent’’ label creates enforceable three-way custody/shared legal parentage. | Memorandum does not and cannot convert Bennett into a legal parent; parental-preference doctrine limits awarding custody to non-parents absent unfitness or extraordinary circumstances. |
| Whether visitation rights survive a finding that Bennett is not a legal parent | Mother/Demmon: visitation can remain as a third-party best-interest determination. | Bennett: if not parent, he should at least keep visitation already agreed. | Court does not decide 2016 order issues here, but confirms visitation may be granted to non-parents and is governed by best-interest principles (distinct from custody). |
| Whether the contempt order against Mother and Demmon was proper | Mother/Demmon: contempt order was an abuse — procedural defects, language access issues, and improper use of jail as sanction. | Bennett: contempt justified by willful vacation violations shortly after admonishment. | Contempt order vacated: court abused discretion by failing to follow civil/criminal contempt procedures, imposing inappropriate sanctions, and raising due-process concerns (no interpreter; unclear standard/purpose). |
Key Cases Cited
- Chatterjee v. King, 280 P.3d 283 (N.M. 2012) (statutory construction review and discussion of circumstances for rebutting parentage presumption)
- Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57 (2000) (parental due process right to make child-rearing decisions)
- Concha v. Sanchez, 258 P.3d 1060 (N.M. 2011) (civil vs. criminal contempt framework and due-process protections)
- Rhinehart v. Nowlin, 805 P.2d 88 (N.M. Ct. App. 1990) (district court authority to modify stipulated custody orders and recognize visitation rights for nonparents)
- In re Hooker, 617 P.2d 1313 (N.M. 1980) (elements and remedies for civil contempt and limits on compensatory sanctions)