N.M. R. Child. Ct. 10-228

As amended through November 1, 2024

Rule 10-228 - Consent decrees; extension, revocation or termination of consent decree

A.Consent decrees. Upon a finding that a factual basis exists for the allegations in the petition, or after adjudication, the court may enter a consent decree that places the respondent child under supervision for a period not to exceed six (6) months under conditions approved by the court. As part of a consent decree, the parties may agree to an extension of the consent decree not to exceed an additional six (6) months.

B.Extension. The children's court attorney may move the court for an order extending the original consent decree for a period not to exceed six (6) months from the expiration of the original decree. The motion for extension shall be filed prior to the expiration of the original decree. If the respondent child objects to the extension, the court shall hold a hearing to determine if the extension is in the best interests of the respondent child and the public.

C.One year limit. A consent decree and any extension may not exceed one (1) year from the date of the entry of the original consent decree.

D.Revocation of consent decree. If, prior to discharge by probation services or the expiration of the consent decree, whichever occurs earlier, the respondent child allegedly fails to fulfill the terms of the decree, the children's court attorney may file a petition to revoke the consent decree. Proceedings on the petition shall be conducted in the same manner as proceedings on petitions to revoke probation.

N.M. R. Child. Ct. 10-228

As amended, effective 8/1/1999;7/1/2002; Rule 10-225 NMRA, recompiled and amended as Rule 10-228 NMRA by Supreme Court Order No. 08-8300-042, effective 1/15/2009.

Committee commentary. - Like Rule 10-227 NMRA, this rule reflects the 2005 changes to the Children's Code. This rule continues the change that was made by the Supreme Court in 2002 to allow consent decrees after adjudication.

[As amended by Supreme Court Order No. 08-8300-042, effective January 15, 2009.]

ANNOTATIONS The 2008 amendment, approved by Supreme Court Order No. 08-8300-042, effective January 15, 2009, in Paragraphs A and C, changed "child" to "respondent child"; in Paragraph A, at the beginning of the sentence, changed "After entry of an admission pursuant to Rule 10-224 NMRA or after a child has been adjudicated as a delinquent" to "Upon a finding that a factual basis exists for the allegations in the petition, or after adjudication", and deleted the last sentence which provided that a consent decree and any extension may not exceed one year from the date of the entry of an original consent decree; added new Paragraph C; relettered former Paragraph C as Paragraph D; and in Paragraph D, changed "prior to the expiration" to "prior to discharge by probation services or the expiration", and added "whichever occurs earlier". The 2002 amendment, effective July 1, 2002, substituted "entry of an admission pursuant to Rule 10-224 NMRA or after a child has been adjudicated as a delinquent" for "a factual basis has been established" in Paragraph A. The 1999 amendment, effective August 1, 1999, added Paragraph A, and redesignated subsequent paragraphs accordingly; substituted "child" for "respondent" in Paragraphs B and C; in Paragraph C, deleted the last sentence listing the court's options if the respondent is found to have violated the terms of the consent decree; and deleted former Subsection C relating to termination. Recompilations. - Pursuant to Supreme Court Order No. 08-8300-042, Rule 10-225 NMRA was recompiled as Rule 10-228 NMRA, effective January 15, 2009.

Cross references. - For extension, revocation or termination of consent decrees, see 32A-2-22 NMSA 1978. Court may properly call for information in deciding whether to accept or reject a consent decree or provide for a more favorable disposition of the child, as predisposition reports are relevant in deciding an appropriate disposition of the case and calling for information on the child's background is consistent with the legislative purpose in Section 32-1-2B NMSA 1978 of providing a "program of supervision, care and rehabilitation." State v. Doe, 1978-NMCA-124, 92 N.M. 354, 588 P.2d 555. Law reviews. - For survey, "Children's Court Practice in Delinquency and Need of Supervision Cases Under the New Rules," see 6 N.M.L. Rev. 331 (1976). For article, "The New Mexico Children's Code: Some Remaining Problems," see 10 N.M.L. Rev. 341 (1980).