A. When a responding tribunal of this state receives a petition or comparable pleading from an initiating tribunal or directly pursuant to Subsection B of Section 40-6A-301 NMSA 1978, it shall cause the petition or pleading to be filed and notify the petitioner where and when it was filed.
B. A responding tribunal of this state, to the extent not prohibited by other law, may do one or more of the following:
(1) establish or enforce a support order, modify a child-support order, determine the controlling child-support order or determine parentage of a child;
(2) order an obligor to comply with a support order, specifying the amount and the manner of compliance;
(3) order income withholding;
(4) determine the amount of any arrearage and specify a method of payment;
(5) enforce orders by civil or criminal contempt, or both;
(6) set aside property for satisfaction of the support order;
(7) place liens and order execution on the obligor's property;
(8) order an obligor to keep the tribunal informed of the obligor's current residential address, electronic mail address, telephone number, employer, address of employment and telephone number at the place of employment;
(9) issue a bench warrant for an obligor who has failed after proper notice to appear at a hearing ordered by the tribunal and enter the bench warrant in any local and state computer systems for criminal warrants;
(10) order the obligor to seek appropriate employment by specified methods;
(11) award reasonable attorney's fees and other fees and costs; and
(12) grant any other available remedy.
C. A responding tribunal of this state shall include in a support order issued pursuant to the Uniform Interstate Family Support Act, or in the documents accompanying the order, the calculations on which the support order is based.
D. A responding tribunal of this state may not condition the payment of a support order issued pursuant to the Uniform Interstate Family Support Act upon compliance by a party with provisions for visitation.
E. If a responding tribunal of this state issues an order pursuant to the Uniform Interstate Family Support Act, the tribunal shall send a copy of the order to the petitioner and the respondent and to the initiating tribunal, if any.
F. If requested to enforce a support order, arrears or judgment or modify a support order stated in a foreign currency, a responding tribunal of this state shall convert the amount stated in the foreign currency to the equivalent amount in dollars under applicable official or market exchange rate as publicly reported.
History: Laws 1994, ch. 107, § 305; 1997, ch. 9, § 8; 2005, ch. 166, § 17; 2011, ch. 159, § 18.
ANNOTATIONSCompiler's notes. — Laws 2016, ch. 61, § 1 repealed Laws 2011, ch. 159, §§ 69 and 70, an applicability clause and contingent effective date, respectively, effective May 18, 2016, thereby making Laws 2011, ch. 159, §§ 1 through 68, effective May 18, 2016. For provisions of Laws 2011, ch. 159, §§ 69 and 70, see compiler's note to 40-6A-100 NMSA 1978.
The 2011 amendment, effective May 18, 2016, authorized the court to order an obligor to keep the court informed of the obligor's electronic mail address.
The 2005 amendment, effective June 17, 2005, required in Subsection (b) that a New Mexico tribunal shall, to the extent not prohibited by other law to determine the controlling child-support order and added Subsection (f) to provide that if requested to enforce or modify an order or judgment expressed in a foreign currency, a New Mexico tribunal shall convert the amount to the equivalent amount in dollars under an exchange rate as publicly reported.
The 1997 amendment, effective July 1, 1997, in Subsection (a), substituted "Subsection (c) of Section 40-6A-301 NMSA 1978" for "Section 301(c) of the Uniform Interstate Family Support Act" and deleted "by first class mail" following "the petitioner"; and in Subsection (e) deleted "by first class mail" preceding "the petitioner".
Responding state not limited to enforcement of support order. — Power of district court in this state acting as responding state is not limited to enforcement of support order of initiating state, so that New Mexico district court had jurisdiction to grant judgment for child support arrearages and order defendant to pay child support even though initiating state's decree may not be entitled to full faith and credit because it lacked personal jurisdiction over defendant. State ex rel. Alleman v. Shoats, 1984-NMCA-072, 101 N.M. 512, 684 P.2d 1177 (decided under prior law).
Provisions for receipt of evidence of out-of-state obligor's defenses. — Where the obligor of an out-of-state child support obligation has provided evidence that constitutes a strong and convincing defense to the payment of support, the district court may order that the case be continued to allow the obligee the opportunity to provide further evidence, either by appearing in person or by providing deposition testimony. Furthermore, the district court may order that if the obligee chooses to provide evidence by a deposition, then the petitioner must pay the costs of the obligor's attorney to travel to an out-of-state deposition. It would be unjust and inequitable to limit interrogation to written questions under these circumstances. State ex rel. California v. Ramirez, 1982-NMSC-141, 99 N.M. 92, 654 P.2d 545 (decided under prior law).
Jurisdictional requisites in responding state. — In a support proceeding initiated in another state and filed in district court in New Mexico as the responding state, all that is needed for proper jurisdiction is the presence of the person owing support in New Mexico, the presence of the child or person owed support in another state, and the existence of a duty of support under the laws of the responding state. State ex rel. Alleman v. Shoats, 1984-NMCA-072, 101 N.M. 512, 684 P.2d 1177 (decided under prior law).
Responding state may make independent finding as to necessary support. — The responding state has the authority to make an independent finding on the amount of support necessary for the maintenance of a minor child, regardless of the amount which may have been set by another court, and has discretionary equitable power to make an order of child support retroactive to the date a complaint is received and filed with the responding state. State ex rel. Alleman v. Shoats, 1984-NMCA-072, 101 N.M. 512, 684 P.2d 1177 (decided under prior law).