Parental Rights in New Mexico


New Mexico Parental Rights News

By Elizabeth Schatzinger May 13, 2026
Last month, the Parental Rights Foundation proudly announced the release of our first-ever State of Parental Rights in America (SOPRA) publication. Today, we are thrilled to bring it to the EPPiC Broadcast . EPPiC stands for “Empowering Parents, Protecting Children,” and the EPPiC Broadcast is the official podcast of the Parental Rights Foundation. Each week, I host a half-hour conversation with a scholar, lawyer, or thought leader in the realm of parental rights. This season , we have featured Kelly Fong and Frank Edwards, Vernadette Broyles, Will Estrada, Sharon Balmer-Cartagena, Alex Cinney and Toia Potts, David Kelly, Layal Bou Harfouch, Allison Green and Natalece Washington, and our new board chairman, William Wagner. Topics ranged from Fong and Edwards’ recent study on the connection between child abuse mortality rates and the number of children taken into foster care (spoiler: there is none!), to a discussion of parental rights cases then before the U.S. Supreme Court, to homeschool freedom, to the benefits of pre-petition counsel for parents, to children’s counsel in CPS cases. Now we’re finishing our twelfth season with two of the authors from this year’s SOPRA publication. May 12: Joyce McMillan The May 12 episode features Joyce McMillan, a left-leaning thought leader and parent activist, whose SOPRA article, “Common Sense Guardrails for CPS,” we unpack on the show. We discuss Joyce’s assertion that Child Protective Services, or CPS, is a carceral apparatus, not a social service system , and that as such, it should be subject to the same due process restrictions as law enforcement. Joyce also shares stories of parents caught in the system, and how recent legislative efforts in New York state are starting to move the needle in favor of keeping families free from unnecessary investigations and intrusions. Joyce is a straight shooter who turned her own tragic experience with the system into a thirty-year service to similarly-situated families. As the founder and executive director of Just Making a Change for Families ( JMAC for Families ), she has helped countless families navigate the treacherous waters of a CPS investigation while lending her voice to so many more. I am honored to have her on our Board of Advisors , and it was a privilege to speak to her for the EPPiC Broadcast . I hope you’ll take a few minutes this week to hear what she had to say. May 19: Emilie Kao Then on May 19, we’ll feature Emilie Kao, (pronounced “Gow,” rhymes with “now”) a conservative scholar and attorney, whose SOPRA article, “Preserving Childhood: Dependency, Consent, and Parental Rights in Healthcare,” fuels our conversation. Emilie shares with me how the “mature minor” doctrine arose in the twentieth century and why it should be discarded in favor of a return to the “parental presumption” that it replaced. It’s a move that would have far-reaching policy implications, but for those who support parental rights, Emilie says, it’s the right thing to do. Children, she says, are not yet ready to make such serious decisions on their own, and parents are their best and surest source of guidance. As senior counsel and vice president of advocacy strategy for Alliance Defending Freedom , Emilie is an eminent scholar in the area of parental rights, having professional experience at Heritage Foundation, the Office of International Religious Freedom at the U.S. Department of State, and even at the United Nations in Geneva. Now we are honored to have her on our Board of Advisors . Emilie has spoken on the role of the family before the United Nations in New York and in Geneva, and before the U.S. Congress in Washington. Next week, I hope you’ll tune in to hear her unpack a bit of family policy just for us in this one-on-one conversation. It was a privilege to host her on the EPPiC Broadcast. What’s Next? After Emilie’s episode, the EPPiC Broadcast will take a break for the summer, starting work in just the next few weeks to bring you new and engaging episodes starting again in September. Please take a moment to share the EPPiC Broadcast with your friends and family who can benefit from serious discussion about the need for parental rights protection in law and policy. And consider making a donation to keep the program on the air. (Like all of the Parental Rights Foundation’s work, the EPPiC Broadcast is completely donor supported.) As always, thank you for standing with us, and with these thought leaders from both sides of the political aisle, in protecting children by empowering parents.

Be sure to sign up for alerts!


New Mexico State Law

At Risk


New Mexico does not have a state statute that explicitly defines and protects parental rights as fundamental rights.

Don't Miss a Critical Issue!

Be sure to sign up for our newsletter to keep posted on parental rights in both your state and nationwide. Through our volunteer network, we monitor the law in all the states. We then pass on important updates and action items.

Contact Us

New Mexico Courts

At High Risk!


Precedent from the New Mexico Court of Appeals favors best interest of the child without affording parents the protection of strict scrutiny standard.


  • In re Guardianship of Victoria R., 201 P.3d 169, 173, 177 (N.M. Ct. App. 2008), the NM Court of Appeals affirmed a trial court's decision to award guardianship of a child to "psychological parents," to whom the mother had voluntarily given placement of the child, because evidence of potential psychological harm to the child overcame the presumption in favor of the biological parent, id. at 177; the court did not employ strict scrutiny, noting that "only Justice Thomas, in a concurring opinion, relied upon a fundamental rights-strict scrutiny analysis" and that "some authorities, noting that only Justice Thomas expressly relied upon textbook fundamental rights-strict scrutiny analysis, have read Troxel as moving away from the rigid strict scrutiny mode of analysis of state legislation that impinges on parents' control over the upbringing of their children," (id. at 173 n. 4).
  • Williams v. Williams, 50 P.3d 194, 200 (N.M. Ct. App. 2002) affirmed an order of visitation, over the objection of the parents, based solely on statutory factors including the best-interest of the child with no apparent presumption in favor of the parents' decision; "We agree with Parents that, as a general proposition, Troxel does require courts to give special consideration to the wishes of parents, and appropriately so. However, we do not read Troxel as giving parents the ultimate veto on visitation in every instance. Troxel may have altered, but it did not eradicate, the kind of balancing process that normally occurs in visitation decisions.”