(a) Before a child-custody determination is made under the Uniform Child-Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act, notice and an opportunity to be heard in accordance with the standards of Section 108 must be given to all persons entitled to notice under the law of this state as in child-custody proceedings between residents of this state, any parent whose parental rights have not been previously terminated and any person having physical custody of the child.

(b) The Uniform Child-Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act does not govern the enforceability of a child-custody determination made without notice or an opportunity to be heard.

(c) The obligation to join a party and the right to intervene as a party in a child-custody proceeding under the Uniform Child-Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act are governed by the law of this state as in child-custody proceedings between residents of this state.

History: Laws 2001, ch. 114, § 205.

Notice to interested parties. — Where jurisdiction is sought to be established under the Child Custody Jurisdiction Act, a petitioner must obtain service upon the other parties entitled to such notice by affirmatively undertaking to give notice and obtain service upon other interested parties as contemplated by 40-10-6 NMSA 1978 (now see 40-10A-108 NMSA 1978). In re Sabrina Mae D., 1992-NMCA-050, 114 N.M. 133, 835 P.2d 849, cert. denied, 113 N.M. 744, 832 P.2d 1223.

Waiver of notice. — Mother's handwritten document authorizing grandparents to sign any necessary papers for medical reasons for the child was insufficient to constitute consent to relinquish complete custody of her child to grandparents; nor was such document sufficient to constitute a valid waiver of notice or consent by her to submit to jurisdiction under Subsection D of 40-10-6 NMSA 1978 (now see 40-10A-108 NMSA 1978). In re Sabrina Mae D., 1992-NMCA-050, 114 N.M. 133, 835 P.2d 849, cert. denied, 113 N.M. 744, 832 P.2d 1223.

When foreign custody order not enforceable. — A temporary New Hampshire ex parte child custody order was not enforceable in New Mexico, where it was obtained without providing notice to the father and an opportunity to be heard. Elder v. Park, 1986-NMCA-034, 104 N.M. 163, 717 P.2d 1132.

Execution of facially valid ex parte custody order. — It was objectively reasonable for a social worker, sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, to have believed that participating with California police officers in executing in California a facially valid New Mexico ex parte custody order, based on allegations of sexual abuse, that complied with the post-deprivation prompt notice and hearing requirements in Rules 10-303 and 10-304 NMRA (now 10-315 and 10-314 NMRA), would not violate the federal rights of the child's mother. Social workers reasonably would not know that ex parte orders cannot be served in another state without domesticating them. Yount v. Millington, 1993-NMCA-143, 117 N.M. 95, 869 P.2d 283, cert. denied, 117 N.M. 121, 869 P.2d 820 (1994).

Law reviews. — For annual Survey of New Mexico Family Law, see 17 N.M.L. Rev. 291 (1987).