N.M. Stat. Ann. § 32A-2-7
History: 1978 Comp., § 32A-2-7, enacted by Laws 1993, ch. 77, § 36; 2005, ch. 189, § 12.
The 2005 amendment, effective June 17, 2005, in Subsection B, provided that in a preliminary inquiry the child shall be informed of the child's right to remain silent; added Subsection C, which provided that prior to a preliminary inquiry concerning a child who is detained, the child's parent, guardian or custodian or attorney shall be given notice by the juvenile probation and parole officer and an opportunity to be present; that if the child is not detained, the inquiry shall be conducted within thirty days after receipt of referral from law enforcement; and that the thirty day period may be extended if the extension is necessary to conduct a thorough inquiry and the extension is not prejudicial to the child; and in Subsection D, provided that if a child is not detained and a determination is made to file a petition, the petition shall be filed within sixty days after completion of the preliminary inquiry, unless a motion is granted to extend the time and that if a child is not in custody or detention, a petition shall not be dismissed for failure to comply with the time limit unless the child is prejudiced.
Decisions under prior law. — In light of the similarity of the provisions, annotations decided under former Section 32-1-14 NMSA 1978 have been included in the annotations to this section.
Legislative intent. — The legislature intended that there be prompt adjudication of cases under the Children's Code. Doe v. State, 1975-NMCA-108, 88 N.M. 347, 540 P.2d 827, cert. denied, 88 N.M. 318, 540 P.2d 248.
Purpose of preliminary inquiry is not to determine guilt or innocence, but to afford probation services insight into the need for filing a petition. State v. Doe, 1977-NMCA-124, 91 N.M. 232, 572 P.2d 960, cert. denied, 91 N.M. 249, 572 P.2d 1257.
There can be valid preliminary inquiry without conference, and therefore without an initial conference involving the child, the parents and probation services. State v. Doe, 1977-NMCA-124, 91 N.M. 232, 572 P.2d 960, cert. denied, 91 N.M. 249, 572 P.2d 1257.
Best interests determination involves exercise of discretion. — A best interest determination, whether by probation services, the children's court attorney, or both, involves the exercise of discretion. State v. Doe, 1982-NMCA-065, 97 N.M. 792, 643 P.2d 1244.
Social determination, not a legal one. — The best interests determination as to the filing of a delinquency petition is a social determination, not a legal determination. State v. Doe, 1982-NMCA-065, 97 N.M. 792, 643 P.2d 1244.
Habeas corpus writ additional means of bringing child before court. — The statutory remedy for bringing dependent and neglected children before the district court was not exclusive and the court could issue a writ of habeas corpus upon application by state department of public welfare (now health care authority department) to obtain custody of an alleged dependent and neglected child. New Mexico Dep't of Pub. Welfare v. Cromer, 1948-NMSC-046, 52 N.M. 331, 197 P.2d 902 (decided under prior law).
Law reviews. — For survey, "Children's Court Practice in Delinquency and Need of Supervision Cases Under the New Rules," see 6 N.M.L. Rev. 331 (1976).
Am. Jur. 2d, A.L.R. and C.J.S. references. — 47 Am. Jur. 2d Juvenile Courts and Delinquent and Dependent Children § 62 et seq.
Truancy as indicative of delinquency or incorrigibility, justifying commitment of infant or juvenile, 5 A.L.R.4th 1211.
Defense of infancy in juvenile delinquency proceedings, 83 A.L.R.4th 1135.
43 C.J.S. Infants §§ 93, 99.