1. A. When it appears from the facts during the course of any proceeding under the Children's Code that some finding or remedy other than or in addition to those indicated by the petition or motion are appropriate, the court may, either on motion by the children's court attorney or that of counsel for the child, amend the petition or motion and proceed to hear and determine the additional or other issues, findings or remedies as though originally properly sought.
2. B. Upon application of a party, the court shall issue, and upon its own motion the court may issue, subpoenas requiring attendance and testimony of witnesses and the production of records, documents or other tangible objects at any hearing.
3. C. Subject to the laws relating to the procedures therefor and the limitations thereon, the court may punish a person for contempt of court for disobeying an order of the court or for obstructing or interfering with the proceedings of the court or the enforcement of its orders.

4. D. In any proceeding under the Children's Code, either on motion of a party or on the court's own motion, the court may make an order restraining the conduct of any party over whom the court has obtained jurisdiction if:

   1. (1) the court finds that the person's conduct is or may be detrimental or harmful to the child and will tend to defeat the execution of any order of the court; and
   2. (2) due notice of the motion and the grounds therefor and an opportunity to be heard thereon have been given to the person against whom the order is directed.
5. E. In any proceeding under the Children's Code, the court may allow a party or witness to the proceeding to participate by the use of electronic communications, consistent with the rights of all parties to the proceeding and pursuant to rules promulgated by the supreme court.

History: 1978 Comp., § 32A-1-18, enacted by Laws 1993, ch. 77, § 27; 1995, ch. 206, § 9.

ANNOTATIONS

Cross references. — For subpoenas in the Children's Court, see Rule 10-143 NMRA.

The 1995 amendment, effective July 1, 1995, deleted "provided all necessary parties consent" following "petition or motion and" in Subsection A, substituted "the judgment of disposition made" for "any order of the court" in Paragraph (1) of Subsection D, and added Subsection E.

Decisions under prior law. — In light of the similarity of the provisions, annotations decided under former Section 32-1-40 NMSA 1978 have been included in the annotations to this section.

Failure to follow statutory procedure. — Where the parent was charged with neglect and abandonment of the parent’s children; at the end of the hearing, after all evidence had been presented, CYFD asserted in its closing argument that there was sufficient evidence to support a finding of abuse; the court considered CYFD’s argument as a motion to amend to conform to the evidence pursuant to Rule 1-015 NMRA and granted the motion to amend the petition to include a claim of abuse; the court did not hear the issue of abuse; and the court found that the parent neglected and abused the children, the parent’s due process rights were violated by the amendment procedure because the court erred by relying on Rule 1-015 NMRA and by not holding a hearing on the abuse issue as required by Section 32A-1-18 NMSA 1978. State ex rel. Children, Youth & Families Dep't v. Steve C., 2012-NMCA-045, 277 P.3d 484.

Children's court is empowered to enter injunction conducive to purposes of Children's Code. In re Doe, 1983-NMCA-025, 99 N.M. 517, 660 P.2d 607.

Children's court had statutory authority to order therapy for a child, even though the court found that the child was neither abused nor neglected, where the facts indicated that the case itself caused a need for the child to require counseling. State ex rel. Dep't of Human Servs. v. Patrick R., 1986-NMCA-116, 105 N.M. 133, 729 P.2d 1387.

Incarceration of child in need of supervision for contempt. — There is no authority to incarcerate children in need of supervision for a probation violation after a finding of three violations of probation. State v. Julia S., 1986-NMCA-039, 104 N.M. 222, 719 P.2d 449.

Accommodation availability rests with administrators. — Availability of accommodations in state institution is made the controlling factor in determining admissions, and this question rests solely with the administrators and not with the court. That the court may punish for contempt is not open to question; but, in view of what is later said, it is without authority to proceed against the administrators. Carter v. Montoya, 1966-NMSC-021, 75 N.M. 730, 410 P.2d 951.

Testimony by electronic communication. — Court should consider the following functions related to a witness' personal appearance in determining whether the allowance of testimony via electronic communication falls within due process standards: assists the trier of fact in evaluating the witness' credibility by allowing his or her demeanor to be observed first-hand; helps establish the identity of the witness; impresses upon the witness the seriousness of the occasion; assures that the witness is not being coached or influenced during testimony; assures that the witness is not referring to documents improperly; and provides for the right of confrontation. State ex rel. Children, Youth & Families Dep't v. Anne McD., 2000-NMCA-020, 128 N.M. 618, 995 P.2d 1060.

Am. Jur. 2d, A.L.R. and C.J.S. references. — Court's power to punish for contempt a child within the age group subject to jurisdiction of juvenile court, 77 A.L.R.2d 1004.

Interference with enforcement of judgment in criminal or juvenile delinquent case as contempt, 8 A.L.R.3d 657.

Lack of notice to contemnor at time of contemptuous conduct of possible criminal contempt sanctions as affecting prosecution for contempt in federal court, 76 A.L.R. Fed. 797.