Kinship Guardianship Revisited

In my capacity as a domestic relations mediator and GAL, I have previously written about a rather convoluted Kinship Guardianship case, Freedom C. v. Julie Ann D., 2011-NMCA-040, in which the New Mexico Court of Appeals concluded that both parents must meet the grounds of § 40-10B-8(B) relied upon.  In that case, only Mom had consented to the Kinship Guardianship, and the child had resided only without Dad for the 90-day period.  See § 40-10B-8(B)(1) and (3).  However, the Supreme Court has recently reversed the Court of Appeals, concluding that "the Legislature intended that both parents need to satisfy at least one of the three conditions, regardless of whether they satisfy the same condition."  See In re Patrick D., NM Sup. Ct. No. 32,944 (May 30, 2012).

Kinship Guardianship Narrowly Applied

As a guardian ad litem (GAL) and domestic relations mediator in New Mexico, I take special interest in unusual court cases involving children.  In a recent, and rather convoluted case, Freedom C. v. Julie Ann D., 2011-NMCA-040, cert. gran., the New Mexico Court of Appeals rejected use of the Kinship Guardianship Act, NMSA 40-10B-1 et seq., by grandparents living with a parent to divest the other parent of his or her rights.