N.M. Stat. » Chapter 40 — Domestic Affairs
New Mexico Statutes

N.M. Stat. § 40-11-5 (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Repealed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History: Laws 1986, ch. 47, § 5; 1989, ch. 56, § 1; 1993, ch. 287, § 3; 1997, ch. 237, § 17; repealed by Laws 2009, ch. 215, § 9.

ANNOTATIONS

Repeals. — Laws 2009, ch. 215, § 19 repealed 40-11-5 NMSA 1978, as enacted by Laws 1986, ch. 47, § 5, relating to presumption of paternity, effective January 1, 2010. For provisions of former section, see the 2008 NMSA 1978 on NMOneSource.com. For present comparable provisions, see the New Mexico Uniform Parentage Act, 40-11A- 101 to 40-11A-903 NMSA 1978.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 10 cases (4 in the last 5 years), 1990–2024 · leading case: Chatterjee v. King, 2012-NMSC-019, 280 P.3d 283.
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Chatterjee v. King, 2012-NMSC-019, 280 P.3d 283. · cites it 137× “Chatterjee alleged that she was a presumed natural parent under the former codification of the New Mexico Uniform Parentage Act,1 NMSA 1978, Section 40-11-3 (1986), Section 40-11-5 (1997), and Section 40-11-21 (1986).”
Chatterjee v. King, 2011-NMCA-012, 253 P.3d 915. · cites it 24× “The methods by which a man can assert his status as a natural father are provided in Section 40-11-5. If we were to read Section 40-11-5 to apply to women, pursuant to Section 40-11-21, we would be rendering the portion of Section 40-11-4 ascribing the methods by which a woman…”
Tue Thi Tran v. Bennett, 411 P.3d 345 (N.M. 2018). · cites it 8× “" Section 40-11-5(A). Relevant here, a man is presumed to be the natural father if "he and the child's natural mother are or have been married to each other and the child is born during the marriage.”
State ex rel. Human Servs. Dep't v. Aguirre, 797 P.2d 317 (N.M. Ct. App. 1990). · cites it 2× “Respondent characterizes this argument as dangerous because it inappropriately relinquishes determination of parentage to testing agencies, which are subject to human error in conducting the tests and reporting the results.”
Sisneroz ex rel. Angelin G. v. Polanco, 1999-NMCA-039, 975 P.2d 392. “See § 40-11-5(A)(3). Father in this case never pursued any of these alternatives set forth in the UPA to establish a presumption of paternity.”
Soon v. Kammann, 521 P.3d 110 (N.M. Ct. App. 2022). · cites it 2× “As an issue of first impression, our Supreme Court held that the presumptions of paternity set forth in NMSA 1978, Section 40-11-5 (1997, repealed 2009) operated in a gender-neutral fashion such that a woman could rely on the paternity presumptions to establish standing and…”
Chatterjee v. King, 253 P.3d 915 (N.M. Ct. App. 2011). · cites it 17× “The methods by which a man can assert his status as a natural father are provided in Section 40-11-5. If we were to read Section 40-11-5 to apply to women, pursuant to Section 40-11-21, we would be rendering the portion of Section 40-11-4 ascribing the methods by which a woman…”
Barreras v. Archibeque (N.M. Ct. App. 2024). · cites it 4× “See NMSA 1978, § 40-11-5(A)(4) (1997) (“A [person] is 9 presumed to be the natural [parent] of a child if .”
Barreras v. Archibeque, 552 P.3d 711 (N.M. Ct. App. 2024). · cites it 4× “See NMSA 1978, § 40-11-5(A)(4) (1997) (“A [person] is presumed to be the natural [parent] of a child if .”
Soon v. Kammann (N.M. Ct. App. 2022). · cites it 2× “As an issue of first impression, 12 our Supreme Court held that the presumptions of paternity set forth in NMSA 1978, 13 Section 40-11-5 (1997, repealed 2009) operated in a gender-neutral fashion such that 14 a woman could rely on the paternity presumptions to establish standing…”
N.M. Stat. § 40-11-5(A): 3 cases
Chatterjee v. King, 2011-NMCA-012, 253 P.3d 915. “The methods by which a man can assert his status as a natural father are provided in Section 40-11-5. If we were to read Section 40-11-5 to apply to women, pursuant to Section 40-11-21, we would be rendering the portion of Section 40-11-4 ascribing the methods by which a woman…”
Tue Thi Tran v. Bennett, 411 P.3d 345 (N.M. 2018). “" Section 40-11-5(A). Relevant here, a man is presumed to be the natural father if "he and the child's natural mother are or have been married to each other and the child is born during the marriage.”
Chatterjee v. King, 253 P.3d 915 (N.M. Ct. App. 2011). “The methods by which a man can assert his status as a natural father are provided in Section 40-11-5. If we were to read Section 40-11-5 to apply to women, pursuant to Section 40-11-21, we would be rendering the portion of Section 40-11-4 ascribing the methods by which a woman…”
N.M. Stat. § 40-11-5(A)(1): 2 cases
Chatterjee v. King, 2012-NMSC-019, 280 P.3d 283. “Chatterjee alleged that she was a presumed natural parent under the former codification of the New Mexico Uniform Parentage Act,1 NMSA 1978, Section 40-11-3 (1986), Section 40-11-5 (1997), and Section 40-11-21 (1986).”
Tue Thi Tran v. Bennett, 411 P.3d 345 (N.M. 2018). “" Section 40-11-5(A). Relevant here, a man is presumed to be the natural father if "he and the child's natural mother are or have been married to each other and the child is born during the marriage.”
N.M. Stat. § 40-11-5(A)(3): 1 case
Sisneroz ex rel. Angelin G. v. Polanco, 1999-NMCA-039, 975 P.2d 392. “See § 40-11-5(A)(3). Father in this case never pursued any of these alternatives set forth in the UPA to establish a presumption of paternity.”
N.M. Stat. § 40-11-5(A)(4): 5 cases
Chatterjee v. King, 2012-NMSC-019, 280 P.3d 283. “Chatterjee alleged that she was a presumed natural parent under the former codification of the New Mexico Uniform Parentage Act,1 NMSA 1978, Section 40-11-3 (1986), Section 40-11-5 (1997), and Section 40-11-21 (1986).”
Chatterjee v. King, 2011-NMCA-012, 253 P.3d 915. “The methods by which a man can assert his status as a natural father are provided in Section 40-11-5. If we were to read Section 40-11-5 to apply to women, pursuant to Section 40-11-21, we would be rendering the portion of Section 40-11-4 ascribing the methods by which a woman…”
Chatterjee v. King, 253 P.3d 915 (N.M. Ct. App. 2011). “The methods by which a man can assert his status as a natural father are provided in Section 40-11-5. If we were to read Section 40-11-5 to apply to women, pursuant to Section 40-11-21, we would be rendering the portion of Section 40-11-4 ascribing the methods by which a woman…”
Barreras v. Archibeque (N.M. Ct. App. 2024). “See NMSA 1978, § 40-11-5(A)(4) (1997) (“A [person] is 9 presumed to be the natural [parent] of a child if .”
Barreras v. Archibeque, 552 P.3d 711 (N.M. Ct. App. 2024). “See NMSA 1978, § 40-11-5(A)(4) (1997) (“A [person] is presumed to be the natural [parent] of a child if .”
N.M. Stat. § 40-11-5(B): 1 case
Chatterjee v. King, 2012-NMSC-019, 280 P.3d 283. “Chatterjee alleged that she was a presumed natural parent under the former codification of the New Mexico Uniform Parentage Act,1 NMSA 1978, Section 40-11-3 (1986), Section 40-11-5 (1997), and Section 40-11-21 (1986).”
N.M. Stat. § 40-11-5(C): 2 cases
Chatterjee v. King, 2012-NMSC-019, 280 P.3d 283. “Chatterjee alleged that she was a presumed natural parent under the former codification of the New Mexico Uniform Parentage Act,1 NMSA 1978, Section 40-11-3 (1986), Section 40-11-5 (1997), and Section 40-11-21 (1986).”
Tue Thi Tran v. Bennett, 411 P.3d 345 (N.M. 2018). “" Section 40-11-5(A). Relevant here, a man is presumed to be the natural father if "he and the child's natural mother are or have been married to each other and the child is born during the marriage.”
N.M. Stat. § 40-11-5(D): 2 cases
Tue Thi Tran v. Bennett, 411 P.3d 345 (N.M. 2018). “" Section 40-11-5(A). Relevant here, a man is presumed to be the natural father if "he and the child's natural mother are or have been married to each other and the child is born during the marriage.”
State ex rel. Human Servs. Dep't v. Aguirre, 797 P.2d 317 (N.M. Ct. App. 1990). “Respondent characterizes this argument as dangerous because it inappropriately relinquishes determination of parentage to testing agencies, which are subject to human error in conducting the tests and reporting the results.”
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.