1. A. When the district court grants reasonable visitation privileges to a grandparent pursuant to the provisions of the Grandparent's Visitation Privileges Act, the court shall issue any necessary order to enforce the visitation privileges and may modify the privileges or order upon a showing of good cause by any interested person.
2. B. Absent a showing of good cause, no grandparent or parent shall file a petition pursuant to the provisions of the Grandparent's Visitation Privileges Act more often than once a year.
3. C. When an action for enforcement of a court order allowing visitation privileges is brought pursuant to the Grandparent's Visitation Privileges Act by a grandparent, the court may award court costs and reasonable attorneys' fees to the prevailing party when a court order is violated.

History: 1978 Comp., § 40-9-3, enacted by Laws 1993, ch. 93, § 4; 1995, ch. 58, § 1.

ANNOTATIONS

Repeals and reenactments. — Laws 1993, ch. 93, § 4 repealed former 40-9-3 NMSA 1978, as enacted by Laws 1979, ch. 13, § 3, and enacted a new section, effective July 1, 1993.

The 1995 amendment, effective June 16, 1995, inserted "or parent" in Subsection B and added Subsection C.

Orders for injunctive relief in family matters that provide for continuing jurisdiction are modifiable. — Where grandmother petitioned for visitation privileges with her granddaughter under the Grandparent's Visitation Privileges Act (GVPA), 40-9-1 to 40-9-4 NMSA 1978, and where, while the GVPA proceeding was pending, a no-contact order that had been issued in a separate proceeding under the Kinship Guardianship Act (KGA), 40-10B-1 to 40-10B-15 NMSA 1978, was clarified to prohibit contact between grandmother and the child, and where the district court determined that the revised no-contact order precluded any contact between grandmother and the child, and as a result dismissed the GVPA petition for failure to state a claim without receiving grandmother's evidence, the district court erred in dismissing grandmother's petition as precluded as a matter of law, because orders for injunctive relief in family matters that provide for continuing jurisdiction are modifiable, whether for changed circumstances or some other reason that the injunctive relief should no longer govern the parties' conduct, and grandmother, in this case, alleged sufficient facts to support a claim for visitation, and therefore grandmother was entitled to offer evidence to demonstrate that the petition created a genuine issue of material fact about whether under the current circumstances, modification of the revised no-contact order was justified and visitation under the GVPA was appropriate. Flores v. McLain, 2024-NMCA-079.

Rebuttable presumption. — The presumption that a fit parent acts in the best interests of his or her child is a rebuttable presumption. Deem v. Lobato, 2004-NMCA-102, 136 N.M. 266, 96 P.3d 1186, cert. denied, 2004-NMCERT-008, 136 N.M. 491, 100 P.3d 197.

Am. Jur. 2d, A.L.R. and C.J.S. references. — Grandparents' visitation rights, 90 A.L.R.3d 222.

Grandparents' visitation rights where child's parents are deceased, or where status of parents is unspecified, 69 A.L.R.5th 1.

Grandparent's visitation rights where child's parents are living, 71 A.L.R.5th 99.