October 9, 2019- Reina Del Real v. Aldo Meraz, No. A-1-CA-37661

OCR transcription for search; preserved printed pages are authoritative

—

10
1]

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20

21

22

Corrections to this opinion/decision not affecting the outcome, at the Court's discretion, can occur up to the time of publication
with NM Compilation Commission. The Court will ensure that the electronic version of this opinion/decision is updated accordingly
in Odyssey.

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO
Court of Appeals of New Mexico

REINA DEL REAL, Filed 10/9/2019 10:50 AM
Petitioner-Appellant, / wv af
Mark Reynolds
V. No. A-1-CA-37661
ALDO MERAZ,

Respondent-Appellee.

APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF BERNALILLO COUNTY
Gerard J. Lavelle, District Judge

New Mexico Legal Aid, Inc.
Kate M. Merwald

Santa Fe, NM

for Appellant

Cristina Chavez, Attorney at Law, LLC

Cristina Chavez
Albuquerque, NM
for Appellee
DECISION
IVES, Judge.
{1} The district court denied the request of Petitioner Reina Del Real (Mother) to

order Respondent Aldo Meraz (Father) to pay child support retroactively for two of
Mother and Father’s children pursuant to NMSA 1978, Section 40-1 1A-636(G)

(2009). The court reasoned that the children’s birth certificates, which listed Father

10

1]

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

as the children’s father, were equivalent to acknowledgements of paternity and that
the New Mexico Uniform Parentage Act (NMUPA), NMSA 1978, §§ 40-11A-101
to -903 (2009) does not permit an award of retroactive support when a child’s
parentage is established by an acknowledgment of paternity. Mother appeals,
arguing that this ruling was based on a legal error, an issue we review de novo. See
Kokoricha v. Estate of Keiner, 2010-NMCA-053, ¥ 11, 148 N.M. 322, 236 P.3d 41.
23 After the district court entered its order, this Court addressed the dispositive
issue in Mother’s appeal, holding “that the NMUPA authorizes district courts to
order retroactive support when an acknowledgement of paternity has established the
parent-child relationship.” Human Servs. Dep't v. Toney, 2019-NMCA-035, § 21,
444 P.3d 1074, cert. denied, 2019-NMCERT-___ (No. S-1-SC-37701, June 25,
2019). In Toney, we explained that “[iJnstead of categorically forbidding or
categorically requiring retroactive support, the NMUPA calls for a case-by-case
approach to retroactive support issues, including consideration of any equitable
defenses.” Id. | 32. Because the district court concluded that retroactive support was
categorically unavailable, we reverse and remand so that the district court can make
a determination regarding retroactive support under Toney based on the facts of this
case. In doing so, we express no opinion as to whether a child’s birth certificate is
equivalent to an acknowledgment of paternity or the evidentiary weight to be given

to a birth certificate identifying parentage.

—

{3}, | We reverse and remand for further proceedings consistent with this decision.

2|| {4} IT IS SO ORDERED.

4 ZACHARY ANVES, Judge

1|__ ffashre Boge clase

8| KRISTINA BOGARDUS, Judge