## Facts

- Peter Wallis and Kellie Rae Smith had a consensual sexual relationship and discussed contraception.
- Wallis alleged the parties agreed Smith would take birth control pills and that he did not want to father a child.
- Wallis relied on Smith for contraception and took no independent contraceptive precautions.
- Smith allegedly stopped taking birth control without informing Wallis.
- Smith became pregnant and gave birth to a healthy child on November 27, 1998.
- Wallis alleged he would suffer economic harm because he would be required to pay child support under New Mexico law.
- Wallis sued Smith for fraud, breach of contract, conversion, and prima facie tort, seeking compensatory and punitive damages.

## Issues

1. Whether New Mexico law permits tort or contract damages against a mother based on alleged misrepresentation or breach regarding contraception when the claimed injury is the father’s resulting child-support obligation.
2. Whether the district court properly imposed a $1,000 monetary sanction for alleged misuse of subpoena power.

## Decision

- The Court of Appeals affirmed dismissal for failure to state a claim because the requested damages would effectively require the mother to indemnify the father for child support, contrary to public policy.
- The court held none of the pleaded theories (fraud, breach of contract, conversion, prima facie tort) could be used to obtain damages measured by, or designed to offset, child-support obligations.
- The court reversed the $1,000 sanction, concluding sanctions were not justified on the record.

## Legal Principles

- Child support under New Mexico’s parentage framework is a strict obligation arising from the parent-child relationship, not from the parents’ private understandings about contraception.
- Public policy gives priority to the child’s welfare and does not allow a court to shift a parent’s child-support duty to the other parent through indemnification.
- A plaintiff cannot evade this policy by relabeling the same theory as different torts or contract claims when the practical result is reimbursement of child-support costs.
- Contraceptive choices fall within a sphere of personal privacy; imposing civil liability to reallocate child-support burdens based on alleged contraceptive misrepresentation is inconsistent with that policy framework.
- Monetary sanctions for subpoena misuse require an adequate basis in the circumstances and record.

## Conclusion

The court held that New Mexico public policy bars damages claims—whether framed in tort or contract—that would reimburse or offset a natural parent’s child-support obligation based on alleged misrepresentation about contraception, while separately reversing a sanction imposed for alleged subpoena misuse.


Wallis v. Smith, 130 N.M. 214, 22 P.3d 682 (N.M. Ct. App. 2001)