{
  "id": 2775148,
  "name": "In the Matter of John DOE, a child, Appellant",
  "name_abbreviation": "In re Doe",
  "decision_date": "1973-10-31",
  "docket_number": "No. 1313",
  "first_page": "691",
  "last_page": "694",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "85 N.M. 691"
    },
    {
      "type": "parallel",
      "cite": "516 P.2d 201"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "N.M. Ct. App.",
    "id": 9025,
    "name": "Court of Appeals of New Mexico"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 52,
    "name_long": "New Mexico",
    "name": "N.M."
  },
  "cites_to": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 343,
    "char_count": 7200,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.705,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 2.0303635630491872e-07,
      "percentile": 0.7465080010456208
    },
    "sha256": "d561532371822e7f76e46dfb5e467ff8c83834508a9a19e47f51a8dddaa48f49",
    "simhash": "1:134c3ceb1c6d9471",
    "word_count": 1162
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T15:38:26.265107+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "HENDLEY and LOPEZ, JJ., concur."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "In the Matter of John DOE, a child, Appellant."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "OPINION\nWOOD, Chief Judge.\nThis interlocutory appeal involves the Children\u2019s Code and the authority of the children\u2019s court to act on a petition to retain custody of an adjudicated delinquent. Three items require discussion: (1) the caption of the case; (2) jurisdiction of this Court; and (3) jurisdiction of the children\u2019s court.\nCaption of the case.\nSection 13-14 \u2014 36(A), N.M.S.A.1953 (Repl.Vol. 3, Supp.1973) states: \u201c. . . The name of the child shall not appear in the record on appeal.\u201d The appellate record shows the name of the child. In conformance with \u00a7 13-14-36(A), supra, the Clerk of the Court of Appeals is directed to delete the child\u2019s name. from all records in this Court and substitute the fictitious name of \u201cJohn Doe.\u201d\nJurisdiction of the Court of Appeals.\nSection 13-14-36(A), supra, states: \u201cAny party may appeal from a judgment of the [children\u2019s] court to the court of appeals in the manner provided by law. .\u201d In this case the child is appealing from an order of the children\u2019s court. The question is whether such an appeal is authorized by law.\nThe order appealed from is interlocutory. The order does not \u201c. . . practically dispose of the merits of the action .\u201d and is not a final judgment in a special statutory proceeding. The order is not appealable under \u00a7 21-2-1(5), N.M.S. A.1953 (Repl.Vol. 4), subsections (2) and (6).\nSection 21-10-3, N.M.S.A.1953 (Repl. Vol. 4, Supp.1973) authorizes interlocutory appeals to this Court \u201c[i]n any civil action or special statutory proceeding in the district court. . . . \u201d The petition in this case is a proceeding authorized by \u00a7 13-14-35, N.M.S.A.1953 (Repl.Vol. 3, Supp. 1973), paragraph (H). The children\u2019s court is a division of the district court. Section 13-14-4, N.M.S.A.1953 (Repl.Vol. 3, Supp.1973). Accordingly, the appeal is authorized by \u00a7 21-10-3, supra, and this Court has jurisdiction of the appeal.\nJurisdiction of the children\u2019s court.\nJohn Doe was found to be a delinquent child and in need of supervision. By order dated November 22, 1972, he was placed in the custody of the New Mexico Boys\u2019 School at Springer \u201c. . . until he reaches his eighteenth birthday or sooner released by the authorities of said school.\u201d\nOn July 10, 1973, prior to John Doe\u2019s eighteenth birthday, a petition was filed by the Department of Corrections [see \u00a7\u00a7 42-9-1 through 42-9-11, N.M.S.A.1953 (2d Repl.Vol. 6)] alleging that John Doe \u201c. . . now in custody of the . Boys\u2019 School . . . is in need of care and rehabilitation extending beyond the one year limit. . . .\u201d The petition sought an order extending the custody period \u201cnot to exceed one additional year.\u201d\nJohn Doe, by special appearance, moved to dismiss the petition of July, 1973 on the basis the court \u201c . . . has no jurisdiction to act further in this case or to grant said Petition.\u201d The appeal is from the order denying the motion to dismiss.\nSection 13-14-12, N.M.S.A.1953 (Repl. Vol. 3, Supp.1973) provides that jurisdiction by the court over \u201c. . . the subject matter and the child is automatically terminated . . . (C) . . . when the court enters an order under section 31 . . . for the transfer of legal custody of an adjudicated delinquent child to an agency responsible for the care and rehabilitation of delinquent children. . . .\u201d Section 31(B) [\u00a7' 13-14-31 (B), N.M.S.A. 1953 (Repl.Vol. 3, Supp.1973)] authorizes the court to transfer legal custody of a child found to be delinquent to an agency responsible for the care and rehabilitation of delinquent children. No claim is made that the Boys\u2019 School is not an agency responsible for the care and rehabilitation of delinquent children. See \u00a7 42-4-1, N.M.S. A.1953. (2d Repl.Vol. 6).\nSection 13-14-35, supra, subparagraph (A), provides a judgment vesting legal custody of a child in an agency \u201c. shall remain in force for an indeterminate period not exceeding one [1] year from the date entered, except that a judgment transferring legal custody of an adjudicated delinquent child to an agency responsible for the care and rehabilitation of delinquent children divests the court of jurisdiction at the time of transfer of custody in accordance wit,h section 12 [13-14-12] of the Children\u2019s Code. . . .\u201d\nIn contending that the children\u2019s court had no jurisdiction to act on the petition filed in July, 1973, John Doe relies on \u00a7\u00a7 13-14-12 (C) and 13-14-35(A), supra. These sections, however, apply to the custody order of November, 1972. After entry of the November, 1972 order, the children\u2019s court had no further jurisdiction under the express language of the above two sections.\nThis, however, did not foreclose future court action in connection with the child adjudicated a delinquent. Section 13 \u2014 14\u2014 35(H), supra, states:\n\u201cWhen a child reaches eighteen [18] years of age all judgments affecting the child then in force automatically terminate except that an agency to which the legal custody of an adjudicated delinquent child has been transferred for care and rehabilitation may request the court that made the original transfer of custody for authority to retain legal custody of the child for a period not to extend beyond the child\u2019s twenty-first birthday. The request by the agency shall be made by filing a petition and the petition must be filed before the child\u2019s eighteenth birthday, or before the expiration of one [1] year from the date of. the judgment, whichever occurs later. The petition shall state the reasons why the child is in need of care and rehabilitation extending beyond his eighteenth birthday. A hearing shall be held by the court and conducted as hearings on original petitions are conducted. All of the procedural safeguards and the basic rights contained in the Children\u2019s Code shall apply to the hearing and proceedings in connection with it. If the court finds on the basis of clear and convincing evidence, competent, material and relevant in nature, that the child is in need of further care and rehabilitation, it may extend the agency\u2019s legal custody to a date not extending beyond the child\u2019s twenty-first birthday.\u201d\nSection 13-14-35 (H), supra, contemplates a new petition by the legal custodian of the adjudicated delinquent child and authorizes the custodian to seek an extension of the period of legal custody. This section specifically authorizes the children\u2019s court to hold a hearing \u201cas hearings on original petitions are conducted\u201d and specifically authorizes the children\u2019s court to extend the period of legal custody within specified limits. This section authorizes the children\u2019s court to act on the petition filed in July, 1973.\nThe children\u2019s court, having jurisdiction to consider the petition, did not err in denying the motion to dismiss. The order denying the motion is affirmed. The cause is remanded with instructions to consider the July, 1973 petition on its merits.\nIt is so ordered.\nHENDLEY and LOPEZ, JJ., concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "WOOD, Chief Judge."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Stephen F. Grover, Farmington, for appellant.",
      "David L. Norvell, Atty. Gen., Andrea Buzzard, Asst. Atty. Gen., Byron Cat\u00f3n, Asst. Dist. Atty. and Sp. Asst. Atty. Gen., Santa Fe, for respondent State of N.M."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "516 P.2d 201\nIn the Matter of John DOE, a child, Appellant.\nNo. 1313.\nCourt of Appeals of New Mexico.\nOct. 31, 1973.\nStephen F. Grover, Farmington, for appellant.\nDavid L. Norvell, Atty. Gen., Andrea Buzzard, Asst. Atty. Gen., Byron Cat\u00f3n, Asst. Dist. Atty. and Sp. Asst. Atty. Gen., Santa Fe, for respondent State of N.M."
  },
  "file_name": "0691-01",
  "first_page_order": 753,
  "last_page_order": 756
}