N.M. Stat. § 32A-1-18 (2026)

A. When it appears from the facts during the course of any proceeding under the
Children's Code that some finding or remedy other than or in addition to those indicated
by the petition or motion are appropriate, the court may, either on motion by the
children's court attorney or that of counsel for the child, amend the petition or motion
and proceed to hear and determine the additional or other issues, findings or remedies
as though originally properly sought.

   B. Upon application of a party, the court shall issue, and upon its own motion the
court may issue, subpoenas requiring attendance and testimony of witnesses and the
production of records, documents or other tangible objects at any hearing.

   C. Subject to the laws relating to the procedures therefor and the limitations
thereon, the court may punish a person for contempt of court for disobeying an order of
the court or for obstructing or interfering with the proceedings of the court or the
enforcement of its orders.

   D. In any proceeding under the Children's Code, either on motion of a party or on
the court's own motion, the court may make an order restraining the conduct of any
party over whom the court has obtained jurisdiction if:

      (1)     the court finds that the person's conduct is or may be detrimental or
harmful to the child and will tend to defeat the execution of any order of the court; and

       (2)   due notice of the motion and the grounds therefor and an opportunity to be
heard thereon have been given to the person against whom the order is directed.
    E. In any proceeding under the Children's Code, the court may allow a party or
witness to the proceeding to participate by the use of electronic communications,
consistent with the rights of all parties to the proceeding and pursuant to rules
promulgated by the supreme court.

History: 1978 Comp., § 32A-1-18, enacted by Laws 1993, ch. 77, § 27; 1995, ch. 206,
§ 9.

                                     ANNOTATIONS

Cross references. — For subpoenas in the Children's Court, see Rule 10-143 NMRA.

The 1995 amendment, effective July 1, 1995, deleted "provided all necessary parties
consent" following "petition or motion and" in Subsection A, substituted "the judgment of
disposition made" for "any order of the court" in Paragraph (1) of Subsection D, and
added Subsection E.

Decisions under prior law. — In light of the similarity of the provisions, annotations
decided under former Section 32-1-40 NMSA 1978 have been included in the
annotations to this section.

Failure to follow statutory procedure. — Where the parent was charged with neglect
and abandonment of the parent’s children; at the end of the hearing, after all evidence
had been presented, CYFD asserted in its closing argument that there was sufficient
evidence to support a finding of abuse; the court considered CYFD’s argument as a
motion to amend to conform to the evidence pursuant to Rule 1-015 NMRA and granted
the motion to amend the petition to include a claim of abuse; the court did not hear the
issue of abuse; and the court found that the parent neglected and abused the children,
the parent’s due process rights were violated by the amendment procedure because the
court erred by relying on Rule 1-015 NMRA and by not holding a hearing on the abuse
issue as required by Section 32A-1-18 NMSA 1978. State ex rel. Children, Youth &
Families Dep't v. Steve C., 2012-NMCA-045, 277 P.3d 484.

Children's court is empowered to enter injunction conducive to purposes of
Children's Code. In re Doe, 1983-NMCA-025, 99 N.M. 517, 660 P.2d 607.

Children's court had statutory authority to order therapy for a child, even though
the court found that the child was neither abused nor neglected, where the facts
indicated that the case itself caused a need for the child to require counseling. State ex
rel. Dep't of Human Servs. v. Patrick R., 1986-NMCA-116, 105 N.M. 133, 729 P.2d
1387.

Incarceration of child in need of supervision for contempt. — There is no authority
to incarcerate children in need of supervision for a probation violation after a finding of
three violations of probation. State v. Julia S., 1986-NMCA-039, 104 N.M. 222, 719 P.2d
449.
Accommodation availability rests with administrators. — Availability of
accommodations in state institution is made the controlling factor in determining
admissions, and this question rests solely with the administrators and not with the court.
That the court may punish for contempt is not open to question; but, in view of what is
later said, it is without authority to proceed against the administrators. Carter v.
Montoya, 1966-NMSC-021, 75 N.M. 730, 410 P.2d 951.

Testimony by electronic communication. — Court should consider the following
functions related to a witness' personal appearance in determining whether the
allowance of testimony via electronic communication falls within due process standards:
assists the trier of fact in evaluating the witness' credibility by allowing his or her
demeanor to be observed first-hand; helps establish the identity of the witness;
impresses upon the witness the seriousness of the occasion; assures that the witness is
not being coached or influenced during testimony; assures that the witness is not
referring to documents improperly; and provides for the right of confrontation. State ex
rel. Children, Youth & Families Dep't v. Anne McD., 2000-NMCA-020, 128 N.M. 618,
995 P.2d 1060.

Am. Jur. 2d, A.L.R. and C.J.S. references. — Court's power to punish for contempt a
child within the age group subject to jurisdiction of juvenile court, 77 A.L.R.2d 1004.

Interference with enforcement of judgment in criminal or juvenile delinquent case as
contempt, 8 A.L.R.3d 657.

Lack of notice to contemnor at time of contemptuous conduct of possible criminal
contempt sanctions as affecting prosecution for contempt in federal court, 76 A.L.R.
Fed. 797.