Rule 1-053.2.Domestic relations hearing officers; duties

These amendments and the 2006 amendments to Rule 1-053.1 NMRA respond to the concerns addressed in Lujan and Buffington and address additional, related matters. To the extent appropriate, given the different but sometimes overlapping tasks assigned to the three different judicial officers, the Committee sought to have the same provisions apply to child support hearing officers, domestic relations hearing officers, and domestic violence special commissioners. For this reason, many of the Committee comments contained here are equally applicable to the 2006 amendments to Rule 1-053.1 NMRA and will not be repeated as Committee comments to that rule.

Child support hearing officers

The Legislature created the position of child support hearing officer. See NMSA 1978, § 40-4B-2. The statute provides that the hearing officers follow certain procedures in the course of their duties. See, e.g., NMSA 1978, § 40-4B-7. For two reasons, the Committee recommended that child support hearing officers comply with Rule 1-053.2 NMRA rather than the Child Support Hearing Officer Act when the two conflict. First, under Rule 1-053.2 NMRA domestic relations hearing officers sometimes perform a dual role in the same proceeding, acting both in their regular capacity and as child support hearing officers. See Rule 1-053.2(C)(3) NMRA. To assure consistency and efficiency, the officer should not have to follow different procedures in the same proceeding. Second, some of the procedural provisions of the Child Support Hearing Officer Act are of doubtful validity. See Buffington, 2004-NMCA-092. Rule 1-053.2(I) NMRA therefore provides that when a hearing officer acts as a child support hearing officer, whether under authority granted by NMSA 1978, Section 40-4B-4 or by Rule 1-053.2(C)(3) NMRA, the hearing officer shall comply with the procedures set forth in Rule 1-053.2 NMRA where the rule and the Child Support Hearing Officer Act are inconsistent. See Albuquerque Rape Crisis Ctr. v. Blackmer, 2005-NMSC-032, ¶ 5, 138 N.M. 398, 120 P.3d 820 (recognizing that the Supreme Court may exercise power of superintending control to revoke or amend statutory provisions that conflict with the court’s procedural rules); see also Rule 1-091 NMRA; NMSA 1978, § 38-1-1(A) (1966). Removal of hearing officer

Each party may exercise a peremptory excusal of the district court judge assigned to a case. See Rule 1-088.1 NMRA. There is no equivalent provision for peremptory excusal of a domestic relations hearing officer. In some judicial districts there is only one hearing officer and the use of peremptory challenges would cause undue administrative difficulties. Peremptory challenges also might lead to severely unbalanced workloads where a judicial district has more than one hearing officer. For these reasons, the Committee recommended that peremptory challenges not be available to remove hearing officers. Instead, Rule 1-053.2(D) NMRA provides the court with broad discretion to remove a hearing officer from a case for good cause shown by a party, or on the court’s own motion.

Authority of hearing officer

Although the hearing officer performs a critical function within the judiciary, hearing officers are not judges, do not wear robes, and are not addressed as judge or your honor. Nonetheless, hearing officers are required to conform to the Code of Judicial Conduct and are entitled to the respect due all officers of the court as they assist the court in performing its core judicial function. It is a bedrock principle that “[t]he hearing officer assists the district court in determining the factual and legal issues, and the core judicial function is independently performed by the district judge.” Buffington, 2004-NMCA-092, ¶ 31.

This principle was built into former Rule 1-053.2 NMRA, which provided that “all orders be signed by a district judge before the recommendations of a domestic relations hearing officer become effective.” Rule 1-053.2(C) NMRA (now superseded). The 2006 amendment carries forward the rule that hearing officer recommendations are not effective until “adopted as an order of the court,” Rule 1-053.2(E) NMRA, and makes explicit what was implicit in the superseded rule: The court must review the recommendations before entering an order. See Rule 1-053.2(E) NMRA. This provision is inconsistent with NMSA 1978, Section 40-4B-8(C), which provides that if the court fails to act on the hearing officer’s recommendation within fifteen (15) days, the recommendations have the force of a court order even if not considered or signed by the court. Because child support hearing officers, those acting as child support hearing officers, and the court, now must comply with Rule 1-053.2 NMRA where inconsistent with the Child Support Hearing Officer Act, see Rule 1-053.2(I) NMRA, that statutory provision is no longer valid.

Opportunity to object to recommendations of hearing officer

The former version of Rule 1-053.2 NMRA did not provide a means for a party who disagreed with the recommendations of the hearing officer to voice those objections to the judge who was to consider whether to adopt the recommendations. In Buffington, 2004-NMCA-092, ¶ 30, the Court of Appeals held that due process requires that a party have a meaningful opportunity to present objections to the court before the court enters an order based on the recommendations. The rule now provides that opportunity.

When the hearing officer presents the recommendations to the judge, the hearing officer must serve the parties with a copy of the recommendations and with a notice informing the parties that they may file objections with the court within fourteen (14) days of service of the recommendations. See Rule 1-053.2(F) NMRA; see also Buffington, 2004-NMCA-092, ¶ 30 (suggesting that the ten-day time limit under a previous version of Rule 1-053.2(F) NMRA is an adequate time for filing objections).

Objections must be specific

The purpose of the objections is to focus the court’s attention on areas of dispute concerning the recommendations. Objections should be sufficiently detailed to accomplish this purpose. General objections to the recommendations as a whole or objections that do not point out the nature of the party’s disagreement with the recommendation will not suffice.

Review of recommendations

Unobjected-to recommendations

The court will review the recommendations and make an independent determination whether to adopt them even when no party presents specific objections. If the court agrees with the recommendations it shall enter an order consistent with them. If the court chooses not to adopt the recommendations, the court should consider returning the matter to the hearing officer for further proceedings. The court may instead modify or reject the recommendations and enter a different or contrary order from that recommended. When this is done, the court should consider whether it would be appropriate to give notice to the parties of the court’s proposed action and order, thus allowing the parties an opportunity to present objections to the court’s proposed order, even though the parties had no objection to the hearing officer’s different recommendations. See Buffington, 2004-NMCA-092, ¶ 30 (due process requires a right to object to hearing officer’s recommendations before adopted by court). If the court does not afford the parties the opportunity to view and object in advance of the entry of the court’s modified or contrary order, a party may file a motion for reconsideration after the order is entered. See NMSA 1978, § 39-1-1 (1917); In re Keeney, 1995-NMCA-102, ¶ 10, 121 N.M. 58, 908 P.2d 751.

Objected-to recommendations

When the court receives timely, specific objections, “[t]he district court must then hold a hearing on the merits of the issues before the court, including the hearing officer’s recommendations and the parties’ objections thereto.” Buffington, 2004-NMCA-092, ¶ 31. Rule 1-053.2(H)(1)(b) NMRA mandates a hearing to consider the recommendations and the objections. The Buffington court noted that “[t]he nature of the hearing and review to be conducted by the district court will depend upon the nature of the objections being raised.” Buffington, 2004-NMCA-092, ¶ 31. Rule 1-053.2(H)(1)(b) NMRA provides this flexibility but creates a presumption that the hearing will consist of a review of the record rather than a de novo proceeding. However, the court has discretion in all cases to determine that a different form of hearing take place, including a de novo proceeding at which evidence is presented anew before the court, or a hearing partly on the record before the hearing officer and partly based on the presentation of new evidence not before the hearing officer. See id. The required hearing need not always consist of oral presentations before the court. When appropriate and sufficient to resolve the objections, the court may rely on written presentations of the parties. See Nat’l Excess Ins. Co. v. Bingham, 1987-NMCA-109, ¶ 9, 106 N.M. 325, 742 P.2d 537 (noting that summary judgment motions may be resolved without oral argument “when the opposing party has had an adequate opportunity to respond to movant’s arguments through the briefing process”).

Entry of findings of fact and conclusions of law

As in any case tried without a jury, the court must enter findings of fact and conclusions of law when required to do so under the terms of Rule 1-052 NMRA.

Opportunity to submit objections to report required. — While this rule contains no express provision, due process requires that the parties be given a right to object to the report and recommendations of the hearing officer. Buffington, 2004-NMCA-092.

Hearing officers distinguished. — This rule and the Child Support Hearing Officer Act describe both material similarities and material differences between a domestic relations hearing officer and a child support hearing officer. Buffington, 2004-NMCA-092.

Committee commentary for 2017 amendment. —

The Committee notes that Rule 1-053.2(K) NMRA was amended to remove incorrect references to the Code of Judicial Conduct and clarify that domestic relations hearing officers are required to conform to all applicable Code of Judicial Conduct provisions. See Rule 21-004(C) NMRA.

[As amended by Supreme Court Order No. 17-8300-020, effective for all cases pending or filed on or after December 31, 2017; as amended by Supreme Court Order No. 22-8300-019, effective for all cases pending or filed on or after December 31, 2022.]