A. There is established in the district court for each county a division to be known as the children's court. The district court of each judicial district shall designate one or more district judges to sit as judge of the children's court.
B. The supreme court shall adopt rules of procedure not in conflict with the Children's Code governing proceedings in the children's court, including rules and procedures for juries.
C. If, in a criminal action, it appears to a court other than the children's court division of the district court that jurisdiction is properly within the children's court division, the other court shall transfer the matter to the children's court division. Upon transfer, the children's court division obtains jurisdiction over the matter for proceedings in accordance with the provisions of the Children's Code.
History: 1978 Comp., § 32A-1-5, enacted by Laws 1993, ch. 77, § 14.
ANNOTATIONSDecisions under prior law. — In light of the similarity of the provisions, annotations decided under former Section 32-1-4 NMSA 1978 have been included in the annotations to this section.
No constitutional violation. — Since the 1921 juvenile court law was applicable only to special statutory proceedings set up therein, it did not abrogate the jurisdiction of district courts over minors and therefore was not in violation of N.M. Const., art. VI, § 13. In re Santillanes, 1943-NMSC-011, 47 N.M. 140, 138 P.2d 503.
Division created. — The Juvenile Code (now Children's Code) created a division of the district court. Peyton v. Nord, 1968-NMSC-027, 78 N.M. 717, 437 P.2d 716.
Court not inferior to district court. — The N.M. const., art. VI, § 1, authorizing creation of inferior courts did not require that jurisdiction of district courts over juveniles, provided in N.M. const., art. VI, § 13, be transferred to courts inferior to district courts; the juvenile court (now children's court) created in 1955 was not a court inferior to the district court but rather a division of the district court and was constitutionally created. Peyton v. Nord, 1968-NMSC-027, 78 N.M. 717, 437 P.2d 716.
Jurisdiction of court. — A condition of probation in a criminal sexual contact case, prohibiting defendant from having direct or indirect contact with all children under the age of 18, including the victim of his crimes, did not amount to a "de facto" termination of parental rights, necessitating jurisdiction within the children's court. State v. Garcia, 2005-NMCA-065, 137 N.M. 583, 113 P.3d 406.
Right to disqualify judge. — The fact that the Juvenile Code (now Children's Code) created special procedures and special handling for minors accused of criminal offenses, and no provision is made in the Juvenile Code (now Children's Code) for the disqualification of a juvenile (now children's court) judge, does not mean that the provisions of Section 38-3-9 NMSA 1978 are inapplicable to juvenile (now children's) court proceedings. The juvenile (now children's court) judge is none other than the district judge serving in another division of the district court and the juvenile is a party to the action or proceeding and entitled to exercise the right of disqualification given her by Section 38-3-9 NMSA 1978. Frazier v. Stanley, 1972-NMSC-028, 83 N.M. 719, 497 P.2d 230.
When judge not proper respondent in habeas corpus proceeding. — Juvenile (now children's) court justice is not the proper party in habeas corpus proceeding since only the person having the physical custody of a petitioner (here the sheriff), and who is able to produce him in court, may properly be named as respondent in the habeas corpus proceeding. Peyton v. Nord, 1968-NMSC-027, 78 N.M. 717, 437 P.2d 716.
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 § 1 et seq.
Family court jurisdiction to hear contract claims, 46 A.L.R.5th 735.
43 C.J.S. Infants § 6.