{
  "id": 2836897,
  "name": "In the Matter of John DOE, III, a child, Appellant",
  "name_abbreviation": "In re Doe",
  "decision_date": "1975-01-08",
  "docket_number": "No. 1440",
  "first_page": "170",
  "last_page": "172",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "87 N.M. 170"
    },
    {
      "type": "parallel",
      "cite": "531 P.2d 218"
    }
  ],
  "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": [
    {
      "cite": "78 N.M. 717",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.M.",
      "case_ids": [
        5323763
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1968,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nm/78/0717-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "74 N.M. 365",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.M.",
      "case_ids": [
        2797636
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1964,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nm/74/0365-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "82 N.M. 345",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.M.",
      "case_ids": [
        5325851
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nm/82/0345-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "80 N.M. 788",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.M.",
      "case_ids": [
        5361325
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nm/80/0788-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 319,
    "char_count": 5101,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.822,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 5.537290392146247e-07,
      "percentile": 0.9468413023307537
    },
    "sha256": "6554c4e4069511150a4340d80b4f4f20aa109737c53f67e2fffa408d62ec9721",
    "simhash": "1:2978bd42b86ecdd9",
    "word_count": 851
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T21:55:50.541053+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "WOOD, C. J., and LOPEZ, J., concur."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "In the Matter of John DOE, III, a child, Appellant."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "OPINION\nHENDLEY, Judge.\nThis is an appeal from a Children\u2019s Court proceeding under the Children\u2019s Code, \u00a7 13-14-1 through \u00a7 13-14-45, N.M. S.A.1953 (Repl.Vol. 3, 1968, Supp.1973) wherein Doe, a minor, was made a ward of the Court and committed to the New Mexico Boys\u2019 School for a period not to exceed sixty days. The order was based on a recitation that Doe had admitted to a charge of larceny, \u00a7 40A-16-1, N.M.S.A.1953 (2d Repl.Vol. 6, 1972), of property valued over $100.00 but less than $2,500.00. This recitation is totally unsupported by the record.\nDoe appeals alleging (1) the prosecution was untimely, (2) the order was erroneous and (3) the failure to grant a motion to dismiss was. erroneous. One contention of the state is that this court is without jurisdiction to hear the appeal because of the lack of finality of the order, that is, it is an interlocutory order. We hold that we do have jurisdiction and reverse.\nAppellate Jurisdiction\nThe state contends that since the order neither contained a determination that the child is \u201cin need of rehabilitation\u201d as required by \u00a7 13-14 \u2014 28 (E), supra, nor a final \u201cdisposition in the proceeding\u201d as required by \u00a7 13-14 \u2014 30, supra, then the order was not a \u201cjudgment\u201d as contemplated by \u00a7 13-14 \u2014 36(A), supra.\nThe order makes the child a ward of the court and commits the child to the New Mexico Boys\u2019 School, for diagnostic purposes, for a period not to exceed sixty days. Authority for such a diagnostic commitment is \u00a7 13-14-29(D), supra. By the wording of \u00a7 13-14-29 (D), supra, in ordering the diagnostic commitment, the Children\u2019s Court had necessarily determined that the child was either delinquent or in need of supervision. Compare State v. Tartaglia, 80 N.M. 788, 461 P.2d 921 (Ct.App.1969).\nSuch a determination is a judgment and the diagnostic commitment is a disposition within the meaning of \u00a7 13-14 \u2014 30, supra. That judgment was appealable under \u00a7 13-14-36(A), supra.\nTo hold the order was not appealable, as the state contends, would have the consequence that children could be committed for a period up to sixty days without any right to judicial relief. Such a consequence would be contrary to the legislature\u2019s purpose stated in \u00a7 13-14 \u2014 2(C) and (E), supra.\nWe hold that this court has jurisdiction.\nChildren's Court Jurisdiction\nThe child does not question the validity of the petition upon which the instant proceedings were initiated. However, lack of jurisdiction at any stage of the proceedings is a controlling consideration which must be resolved before going further and an appellate court may raise the question of jurisdiction on its own motion. State v. McNeece, 82 N.M. 345, 481 P.2d 707 (Ct.App.1971).\nThe Children\u2019s Court is a court of limited jurisdiction. See \u00a7 13-14 \u2014 9, supra. Section 13-14 \u2014 9(A)(1), supra, states that:\n\u201c * * * The [Children\u2019s] court has exclusive original jurisdiction of all proceedings under the Children\u2019s Code * * * in which a child is alleged to be:\n\u201c(1) a delinquent child * *\nSection 13-14 \u2014 3(0), supra, states that:\n\u201c * * * \u2018delinquent child\u2019 means a child who has committed a delinquent act and is in need of care or rehabilitation;\u201d (Emphasis added)\nSection 13-14-3 (N), supra, states that a \u201c * * * \u2018delinquent act\u2019 means an act committed by a child, which would be designated as a crime under the law if committed by an adult * *\nThe Children\u2019s Court acquired jurisdiction upon the filing of a petition. See \u00a7\u00a7 13-14\u20149, supra; 13\u201414\u201417, supra. Cf. State v. Vaughn, 74 N.M. 365, 393 P.2d 711 (1964). Compare Peyton v. Nord, 78 N.M. 717, 437 P.2d 716 (1968). It follows that a petition, defective in that it fails to allege those facts necessary to invoke the jurisdiction of the Children\u2019s Court, is insufficient to confer jurisdiction on that court. In the case at bar, the petition alleged that the child had committed a delinquent act, i. e. an act which if committed by an adult would be a crime. It did not allege that the child was in need of care or rehabilitation. As the Children\u2019s Court only has jurisdiction over those proceedings, among others, where the child is alleged to be delinquent, \u00a7 13-14-9, supra, and as delinquent means, having committed a delinquent act plus being in need of care or rehabilitation, \u00a7 13-14 \u2014 3 (N), supra, the Children\u2019s Court was without jurisdiction in this case. See \u00a7 13-14 \u2014 17(A), supra.\nSection 41-23-7, N.M.S.A.1953 (2d Repl.Vol. 6, 1972, Supp.1973) provides that complaints, indictments and informations, in criminal proceedings, shall not be deemed invalid because of defects, errors or omissions. We find no comparable provisions for proceedings under the Children\u2019s Code.\nThe cause is reversed and remanded with instructions to dismiss the petition with prejudice.\nIt is so ordered.\nWOOD, C. J., and LOPEZ, J., concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "HENDLEY, Judge."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Paul S. Wainwright, Robinson, Stevens & Wainwright, Albuquerque, for appellant.",
      "David L. Norvell, Atty. Gen., David M. McArthur, Asst. Atty. Gen., Santa Fe, for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "531 P.2d 218\nIn the Matter of John DOE, III, a child, Appellant.\nNo. 1440.\nCourt of Appeals of New Mexico.\nJan. 8, 1975.\nPaul S. Wainwright, Robinson, Stevens & Wainwright, Albuquerque, for appellant.\nDavid L. Norvell, Atty. Gen., David M. McArthur, Asst. Atty. Gen., Santa Fe, for appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0170-01",
  "first_page_order": 196,
  "last_page_order": 198
}