ISSUE I ANALYSIS

New Mexico Statutes Annotated NMSA § 40-4-7(G), which provides: "The court may

modify and change any order in respect to . . . the care, custody, maintenance . . . of

the children whenever circumstances render such change proper. The district court

shall have exclusive jurisdiction of all matters pertaining to the . . . care, custody,

maintenance . . . of the children so long as the children remain minors."

 In Britton, the Supreme Court declared: "Modification of support obligations is strictly a matter to be

determined by the courts." Id. at 430. The obligor parent cannot unilaterally alter

child support obligations. Id. at 430. The Supreme Court articulated the wellestablished

general rule that "an undivided support award directed at more than one

child is presumed to continue in force for the full amount until the youngest child

reaches majority." Id. at 426.

In Mr. Arturo Garcia's case, just as in Britton, there was an undivided child support

award what was unilaterally modified without a court order by the obligor parent

(Mary Chavez) when the oldest child turned eighteen years old. If the trial court

follows the rule of law presented in Britton, Mary Chavez's unilateral reduction in

child support payments will be found to be impermissible.

No counterargument can be made because the statute and case law are clear on this

matter.

Conclusion:

NMSA § 40-4-7 grants exclusive jurisdiction of all matters pertaining to child support

to the courts. In Britton, the New Mexico Supreme Court prohibits unilateral

modifications by a parent without a court order. Furthermore, an undivided support

award continues for the full amount until the youngest child reaches age eighteen.

Therefore, Mary Chavez is obligated to continue the full amount of the undivided

child support payments until all her children reach age eighteen. Her unilateral

reduction in child support payments will likely found to be impermissible by the

court.