New Mexico Statutes

N.M. Stat. § 40-4-11 (2026)

Determination of award of child support; notice to withhold

✓ current as of May 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section NM-LEGnmonesource.com JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

income.
In any proceeding before a court in which the court has the duty or authority to
determine liability of a parent for the support of minor children or the amount of that
support, the court:

A. shall make a specific determination and finding of the amount of support to be
paid by a parent in accordance with the provisions of Section 40-4-11.1 NMSA 1978;

B. shall not consider present or future welfare financial assistance payments to or
on behalf of the children in making its determination under Subsection A of this section;
and

C. for good cause may order the parent liable for support of a minor child to assign
to the person or public office entitled to receive the child support that portion of the
parent's periodic income or other periodic entitlements to money. The assignment of
that portion of the parent's periodic income or other periodic entitlements to money may
be ordered by the court by the issuance of a notice to withhold income against the
income of the parent. The procedures for the issuance of the notice to withhold income,
the content of the notice to withhold income, the duties of the parent liable for child
support and the duties of the employer responsible for withholding income shall be the
same as provided for in the Support Enforcement Act [40-4A-1 to 40-4A-20 NMSA
1978], except that delinquency in payment under an order for support need not be a
pre-existing condition to effectuate the procedures of the Support Enforcement Act for
purpose of withholding income under this section.

History: 1953 Comp., § 22-7-11.1, enacted by Laws 1971, ch. 185, § 1; 1987, ch. 340,
§ 1; 1988, ch. 87, § 1.

ANNOTATIONS

Compiler's notes. — Laws 1988, ch. 87, § 1 amended 40-4-11 NMSA 1978 as
amended by Laws 1987, ch. 340, § 1, and Laws 1988, ch. 87, § 3 repealed and
reenacted the same section, both effective March 8, 1988. Pursuant to instructions of
the New Mexico compilation commission, both versions of the section have been set
out.

In Leeder v. Leeder, 118 N.M. 603, 884 P.2d 494 (Ct. App. 1994), the court discussed
the interpretation of these two sections and concluded that reading the second version
of this section, Subsection A of 40-4-11.1 and 40-4-11.2 NMSA 1978 together, the
guidelines are presumed to provide the proper amount of child support and that the
second version of this section is ordinarily satisfied if the court sets forth the
computations made under the guidelines. The second version of this section requires
additional findings only when the children's needs for care, maintenance, and education,
in light of the parents' financial resources, justify a departure from the guidelines.
Although under this interpretation there is substantial overlap in what is required by
Subsection A of the second version of this section, Subsection A of 40-4-11.1 and 40-4-
11.2 NMSA 1978, there is no way to avoid the overlap without distorting the meaning of
the statutory language for no discernible purpose. Statutes which relate to the same
subject matter should, if possible, be construed to give effect to every provision of each.

The 1988 amendment, effective March 8, 1988, deleted "disregard of welfare payment"
preceding "notice to withhold" in the catchline; in Subsection A, substituted "in
accordance with the provisions of Section 40-4-11.1 NMSA 1978" for "to provide
properly for the care, maintenance and education of the minor children, considering the
financial resources of the parent"; corrected a misspelling in Subsection C; merged
present Subsection C and former Subsection D by deleting "and" between the
subsections and the designation of former Subsection D; and substituted "this section"
for "this act" at the end of present Subsection C.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 16 cases, 1973–2019 · leading case: Leeder v. Leeder, 884 P.2d 494 (N.M. Ct. App. 1994).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Leeder v. Leeder, 884 P.2d 494 (N.M. Ct. App. 1994). · cites it 18× “FAILURE TO MAKE FINDINGS New Mexico is blessed with two versions of NMSA 1978, Section 40-4-11 (Repl. Pamp.1994). Both deal with child support.”

Tedford v. Gregory, 959 P.2d 540 (N.M. Ct. App. 1998). · cites it 12× “The Uniform Parentage Act, however, mandates retroactive child support pursuant to the child support guidelines.”

DeTevis v. Aragon, 727 P.2d 558 (N.M. Ct. App. 1986). · cites it 5× “§ 40-4-11. Husband also requests reversal of the award of attorney’s fees to wife made by the trial court below.”

Chatterjee v. King, 2011 NMCA 12 (N.M. Ct. App. 2010). · cites it 4× “” Section 40-4-11 applies to “any proceeding before a court in which the court has the duty or authority to determine liability of a parent for the support of minor children or the amount of that support.”

State v. Vickery, 512 P.2d 962 (N.M. Ct. App. 1973). · cites it 10× “The provisions of this 1884 law, as amended in 1919, appear as § 40-4-11, N.M.S.A. 1953 (Orig.Vol. 6). Section 40-4-11, supra, was repealed in 1963 as a part of the law which enacted § 40A-18-3(C), supra.”

Styka v. Styka, 972 P.2d 16 (N.M. Ct. App. 1998). · cites it 2× “Consequently, the trial court may not refrain from imputation of income from full-time employment under Section 40-4-11 .1(C)(1). Mother’s cited portion of the Report does not contradict our holding.”

Sisneroz Ex Rel. Angelin G. v. Polanco, 975 P.2d 392 (N.M. Ct. App. 1999). · cites it 3× “Compare § 40-ll-15(C) (stating that the court shall order retroactive child support) with NMSA 1978, §§ 40-4-11 to -11.2 (1988, as amended through 1995) (determining prospective award of child support in dissolution of marriage cases).”

Blake v. Blake, 695 P.2d 838 (N.M. Ct. App. 1985). · cites it 2× “NMSA 1978, Section 40-4-11 (Repl. Pamp.1983) provides that in determining liability for child support the trial court shall consider “the financial resources of the parent____” Spingola v.”

Boutz v. Donaldson, 991 P.2d 517 (N.M. Ct. App. 1999). · cites it 2× “Under Section 40-4-11 .4, a change in circumstances is presumed sufficient to justify modifying child support if the new circumstances “would result in a deviation upward or downward of more than twenty percent of the existing child support obligation.”

Hopkins v. Guin, 734 P.2d 237 (N.M. Ct. App. 1987). · cites it 3× “Under NMSA 1978, Section 40-4-11 (Repl.1986), the trial court must make “a specific determination and finding of the amount of support to be paid by a parent to provide properly for the care, maintenance and education of the minor children, considering the financial resources of…”

Griego v. Oliver, 2014 NMSC 003 (N.M. 2013). “In the event of separation or divorce, children benefit from orderly child custody proceedings, § 40-4-9; child support, § 40-4-11; joint custody, § 40-4-9.1(B); and the important doctrine which requires courts to consider the best interests of the child.”

Human Servs. Dep't, Child Support Enf't Div. v. Toney, 444 P.3d 1074 (N.M. Ct. App. 2019). “]" Subsection (G) states, in relevant part: The court shall order child support retroactive to the date of the child's birth, but not to exceed twelve years unless there is a substantial showing that paternity could not have been established and an action for child support could…”

Show all 16 citing cases →

— N.M. Stat. § 40-4-11(A) — 4 cases

Leeder v. Leeder, 884 P.2d 494 (N.M. Ct. App. 1994). “FAILURE TO MAKE FINDINGS New Mexico is blessed with two versions of NMSA 1978, Section 40-4-11 (Repl. Pamp.1994). Both deal with child support.”

DeTevis v. Aragon, 727 P.2d 558 (N.M. Ct. App. 1986). “§ 40-4-11. Husband also requests reversal of the award of attorney’s fees to wife made by the trial court below.”

Tedford v. Gregory, 959 P.2d 540 (N.M. Ct. App. 1998). “The Uniform Parentage Act, however, mandates retroactive child support pursuant to the child support guidelines.”

Hopkins v. Guin, 734 P.2d 237 (N.M. Ct. App. 1987). “Under NMSA 1978, Section 40-4-11 (Repl.1986), the trial court must make “a specific determination and finding of the amount of support to be paid by a parent to provide properly for the care, maintenance and education of the minor children, considering the financial resources of…”

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.