N.M. Stat. § 40-6A-201 (2026)

A. In a proceeding to establish or enforce a support order or to determine parentage
of a child, a tribunal of this state may exercise personal jurisdiction over a nonresident
individual or the individual's guardian or conservator if:

      (1)    the individual is personally served with notice within this state;
       (2)   the individual submits to the jurisdiction of this state by consent, by
entering a general appearance or by filing a responsive document having the effect of
waiving any contest to personal jurisdiction;

       (3)    the individual resided with the child in this state;

      (4)     the individual resided in this state and provided prenatal expenses or
support for the child;

       (5)    the child resides in this state as a result of the acts or directives of the
individual;

      (6)   the individual engaged in sexual intercourse in this state and the child may
have been conceived by that act of intercourse;

      (7)    the individual asserted parentage of a child in the putative father registry
maintained in this state by the department of health; or

      (8)    there is any other basis consistent with the constitutions of this state and
the United States for the exercise of personal jurisdiction.

    B. The bases of personal jurisdiction set forth in Subsection A of this section or in
any other law of this state may not be used to acquire personal jurisdiction for a tribunal
of this state to modify a child support order of another state unless the requirements of
Section 40-6A-611 NMSA 1978 are met or, in the case of a foreign support order,
unless the requirements of Section 40-6A-615 NMSA 1978 are met.

History: Laws 1994, ch. 107, § 201; 2005, ch. 166, § 3; 2011, ch. 159, § 5.

                                      ANNOTATIONS

Compiler’s notes. — Laws 2016, ch. 61, § 1 repealed Laws 2011, ch. 159, §§ 69 and
70, an applicability clause and contingent effective date, respectively, effective May 18,
2016, thereby making Laws 2011, ch. 159, §§ 1 through 68, effective May 18, 2016. For
provisions of Laws 2011, ch. 159, §§ 69 and 70, see compiler’s note to 40-6A-100
NMSA 1978.

The 2011 amendment, effective May 18, 2016, granted New Mexico courts personal
jurisdiction to modify a foreign support order if the requirements of Section 40-6A-615
NMSA 1978 are met.

The 2005 amendment, effective June 17, 2005, deleted in Subsection (a) jurisdiction to
modify a support order or to determine parentage and added Subsection (b) to provide
that jurisdiction under Subsection (a) does not confer jurisdiction on a tribunal to modify
a child support order of another state unless the requirement of Section 40-6A-611 or
40-6A-615 NMSA 1978 are met.
Modification affecting non-residential parent. — The Uniform Interstate Family
Support Act (Chapter 40, Article 6A NMSA 1978) supplements human services
department's [health care authority department's] authority under the Public Assistance
Act (27-2-1 NMSA 1978 et seq.) and that human services department [health care
authority department] therefore has the authority to bring an action to modify the child
support obligation of a non-custodial parent residing in another state under UIFSA.
State ex rel. Washington Human Servs.Dep't v. Jackson, 2007-NMCA-061, 141 N.M.
647, 159 P.3d 1132.

Subject matter jurisdiction. — Where parent who was a resident of Texas filed a
petition in New Mexico to enforce the provisions of a Texas judgment, the New Mexico
court had personal jurisdiction over the parent regarding the Texas judgment and
subject matter jurisdiction to enforce, but not to modify, the child support order in the
Texas judgment. Harbison v. Johnston, 2001-NMCA-051, 130 N.M. 595, 28 P.3d 1136.

No denial of due process or equal protection under former 40-6-1 NMSA 1978 et
seq. — Defendant's claim of deprivation of due process in that he did not have an
opportunity to examine plaintiff, where no explanation was made as to why plaintiff's
deposition was not taken, there was no attempt to obtain further information from her by
way of discovery under the provisions of this law, and no continuance was requested,
was denied as the Reciprocal Act does not violate the fourteenth amendment as
claimed by the defendant, and there was no denial of due process or equal protection of
the law. State ex rel. Terry v. Terry, 1969-NMSC-040, 80 N.M. 185, 453 P.2d 206
(decided under prior law).

Requirements of due process complied with. — That there is no deprivation of due
process is clear. When the court of this state receives the papers from the initiating
state the defendant is given notice, an opportunity to be heard, by deposition to
examine and cross-examine the plaintiff and any witness that may have testified in the
initiating state, to examine and cross-examine any witnesses that may testify in this
state, to meet opposing evidence, and to oppose with evidence. Thus the requirements
of due process are complied with. State ex rel. Terry v. Terry, 1969-NMSC-040, 80 N.M.
185, 453 P.2d 206.

Status as Indian not shield where significant contacts with other jurisdiction. —
Where the totality of the marriage relationship shows significant contacts with
jurisdictions other than the Zuni reservation, appellant cannot interpose his special
status as an Indian as a shield to protect him from obligations that result from his
marriage to appellee which had been entered into off the reservation. Natewa v.
Natewa, 1972-NMSC-049, 84 N.M. 69, 499 P.2d 691 (decided under former law).

All that was needed for proper jurisdiction in proceeding under former act was the
presence of the husband or father in the responding state, the presence of the child or
the wife in another state, and the existence of a duty of support on the part of the father
under the laws of the responding state. Natewa v. Natewa, 1972-NMSC-049, 84 N.M.
69, 499 P.2d 691 (decided under prior law).
Enforcement of provisions does not interfere with Indian government or federal
grant. — The enforcement of the New Mexico Revised Uniform Reciprocal
Enforcement of Support Act does not interfere with the internal self-government of the
Zuni tribe or contravene an express federal grant or reservation by placing jurisdiction of
actions to enforce support obligations in the district courts of New Mexico rather than
tribal courts, as the support obligation here arises from the marital relationship between
appellant and appellee. Natewa v. Natewa, 1972-NMSC-049, 84 N.M. 69, 499 P.2d 691
(decided under prior law).

Extradition provisions apply to reciprocal support provisions. — The real effect of
former 40-6-5 NMSA 1978 was to make 31-4-6 NMSA 1978 specifically applicable to
extradition for the crime of nonsupport. Under this section, in considering a requested
extradition, the governor of this state need not look to see whether the demanding state
has a specific statute making it a crime to fail to support a wife or child when the
"failure" by the accused occurs when he is beyond the borders of the demanding state.
1953 Op. Att'y Gen. No. 53-5713 (rendered under former law).