New Mexico Statutes
N.M. Stat. § 22-2-6 (2026)
Repealed
✓ laws through the 2025 session (retrieved May 2026)
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
NM-LEGnmonesource.com
JustiaChapter on Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
History: 1953 Comp., § 77-2-6, enacted by Laws 1967, ch. 16, § 9; 1978, ch. 211, § 9; 2003, ch. 153, § 6; repealed by Laws 2004, ch. 27, § 29. ANNOTATIONS
Repeals. — Laws 2004, ch. 27, § 29 repealed 22-2-6 NMSA 1978, as enacted by Laws 1967, ch. 16, § 9, relating to department duties, effective May 19, 2004. For provisions of former section, see the 2003 NMSA 1978 on NMOneSource.com.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 5
cases, 1957–1972 · leading case: Petition of Quintana, 497 P.2d 1404 (N.M. 1972).
Petition of Quintana, 497 P.2d 1404 (N.M. 1972). “On July 21, 1970 a hearing was held at which one of the principal issues tried and the issue then decided was whether appellant’s consent to the adoption should and could properly be dispensed with pursuant to the provisions of § 22-2-6(d), N.M.S.A.1953. Sections 22-2-1 to 19,…”
Barwin v. Reidy, 307 P.2d 175 (N.M. 1957). “The only other statute bearing on the issue directly is § 22-2-6, which names the instances in which required consent, except that of the child over twelve years of age, may be dispensed with in the discretion of the court, following notice and hearing.”
Nevelos v. Railston, 335 P.2d 573 (N.M. 1959). “The statute which permits the trial court to dispense with written consent is § 22-2-6, New Mexico Statutes Annotated 1953, as follows : “The consent of any person required by the terms of section 5 [22-2-5], other than that of the child over 12 years of age, may, in the…”
Quintana v. Quintana, 487 P.2d 126 (N.M. 1971). “Consent was dispensed with pursuant to § 22-2-6(A) (3), N.M.S.A. (1967 Supp..). Supreme Court Rule 5 (2) states: “Appeals shall also be allowed by the district court, and entertained by the Supreme Court, in all civil actions, from such interlocutory judgments, orders or…”
Tessier v. White, 418 P.2d 200 (N.M. 1966). “Following a hearing on the question of consent, the trial court found that the natural father had wilfully failed to maintain and support his child when obligated and financially able to do so.”
N.M. Stat. § 22-2-6(A): 1 case
Quintana v. Quintana, 487 P.2d 126 (N.M. 1971). “Consent was dispensed with pursuant to § 22-2-6(A) (3), N.M.S.A. (1967 Supp..). Supreme Court Rule 5 (2) states: “Appeals shall also be allowed by the district court, and entertained by the Supreme Court, in all civil actions, from such interlocutory judgments, orders or…”
N.M. Stat. § 22-2-6(d): 1 case
Petition of Quintana, 497 P.2d 1404 (N.M. 1972). “On July 21, 1970 a hearing was held at which one of the principal issues tried and the issue then decided was whether appellant’s consent to the adoption should and could properly be dispensed with pursuant to the provisions of § 22-2-6(d), N.M.S.A.1953. Sections 22-2-1 to 19,…”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.