N.M. Stat. » N.M. Stat. / Chapter 40 / Article 9
New Mexico Statutes

N.M. Stat. § 40-9-1 (2026)

Short title.

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section NM-LEGnmonesource.com JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar 
Chapter 40, Article 9 NMSA 1978 may be cited as the "Grandparent's Visitation
Privileges Act".

History: 1978 Comp., § 40-9-1, enacted by Laws 1993, ch. 93, § 1.

                                     ANNOTATIONS

Repeals and reenactments. — Laws 1993, ch. 93, § 1 repealed former 40-9-1 NMSA
1978, as enacted by Laws 1979, ch. 13, § 1, relating to visitation privileges upon
judgments of dissolution of marriage, legal separation or parentage, and enacted a new
section effective July 1, 1993.

Law reviews. — For article, "Survey of New Mexico Law, 1979-80: Domestic Relations
and Juvenile Law," see 11 N.M.L. Rev. 134 (1981).

For note, "Family Law - A Limitation on Grandparental Rights in New Mexico: Christian
Placement Service v. Gordon," see 17 N.M.L. Rev. 207 (1987).

Annual Survey of New Mexico Family Law, see 17 N.M.L. Rev. 291 (1987).

Am. Jur. 2d, A.L.R. and C.J.S. references. — Grandparents' visitation rights, 90
A.L.R.3d 222.

Religion as factor in child custody and visitation cases, 22 A.L.R.4th 971.

Grandparents' visitation rights where child's parents are deceased, or where status of
parents is unspecified, 69 A.L.R.5th 1.

Grandparent's visitation rights where child's parents are living, 71 A.L.R.5th 99.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 18 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1956–2024 · leading case: Rhinehart v. Nowlin, 805 P.2d 88 (N.M. Ct. App. 1990).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Rhinehart v. Nowlin, 805 P.2d 88 (N.M. Ct. App. 1990). · cites it 14× “1989); NMSA 1978, § 40-9-1 (Repl.Pamp. 1989). We also disagree with father's contention that visitation is a limited form of custody.”
Vest v. State Ex Rel. New Mexico Human Servs. Dep't, 866 P.2d 1175 (N.M. Ct. App. 1993). · cites it 14× “NMSA 1978, §§ 40-9-1 to -4 (Repl.Pamp. 1989), is harder to answer.”
Chatterjee v. King, 2011 NMCA 12 (N.M. Ct. App. 2010). · cites it 4× “2d at 94 (citing Section 40-9-1 with regard to grandparent visitation).”
Deem v. Lobato, 96 P.3d 1186 (N.M. Ct. App. 2004). · cites it 2× “See Grandparent’s Visitation Privileges Act (the GVA), NMSA 1978, § 40-9-1 to -4 (1993, as amended through 1999).”
State v. Bybee, 781 P.2d 316 (N.M. Ct. App. 1989). · cites it 2× “See NMSA 1953, §§ 40-9-1, -6, -7 & -10; see also State v.”
Williams v. Williams, 50 P.3d 194 (N.M. Ct. App. 2002). · cites it 2× “See Grandparent’s Visitation Privileges Act (“GVA”), NMSA1978, § 40-9-1 to — 4 (1993, as amended through 1999).”
Ridenour v. Ridenour, 901 P.2d 770 (N.M. Ct. App. 1995). · cites it 2× “The issues raised on appeal are: (1) whether the Grandparent’s Visitation Privileges Act (GVA), NMSA 1978, §§ 40-9-1 to -4 (Repl. Pamp.1994), is constitutional as applied herein; and (2) whether the amount of visitation granted is reasonable and supported by substantial evidence.”
Lucero v. Hart, 907 P.2d 198 (N.M. Ct. App. 1995). · cites it 2× “Although we agree with Mother that an integral element of proof underlying a request for visitation under the Grandparent’s Visitation Privileges Act, NMSA 1978, Sections 40-9-1 to 40-9-4 (Repl.Pamp.1994), is a showing that the petitioner is either by blood, marriage, or…”
French-Hesch v. French-Williams, 227 P.3d 110 (N.M. Ct. App. 2009). · cites it 2× “{1} The district court ruled that a maternal grandmother lacked standing under the Grandparent Visitation Privileges Act, NMSA 1978, §§ 40-9-1 to -4 (1993, as amended through 1999) (the Act), to seek reasonable visitation with her grandson.”
Preston v. Mercieri, 573 A.2d 128 (N.H. 1990). “022 (1988); N.M. Stat. Ann. §§ 40-9-1 , 40-9-2 (1987); Pa.”
Christian Placement Serv. v. Gordon, 697 P.2d 148 (N.M. Ct. App. 1985). “Wiley argues, however, that the legislature intended to confer certain rights upon grandparents by enacting the Visitation by Grandparents Act, NMSA 1978, Sections 40-9-1 to -4 (Repl.Pamp.1983). Citing Section 40-9-4, Wiley contends that her rights to visitation end with the…”
State v. Lott, 387 P.2d 855 (N.M. 1963). “Defendant now urges for the first time that the Arizona burglary statute and the Oklahoma “Possession of Narcotics” statute differ in some respects from the New Mexico statutes defining those crimes, and argues that it would have been possible for him to have been convicted of…”
Show all 18 citing cases →
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.