The Plaintiffs argue that, although Oakey has recommended a larger apportionment for the children, the Court has an independent duty to determine "whether the settlement and apportionment agreements represent the best interest of J. and G. Alvarez." Motion ¶¶ 10, 13, at 5–6 (citing Garcia v. Middle Rio Grande Conservancy Dist., 1983-NMCA-047, ¶ 28, 99 N.M. 802, 664 P.2d 1000, 1006 overruled on other grounds by Montoya v. AKAL Sec., 1992-NMSC-056, 114 N.M. 354, 838 P.2d 971 ). The Plaintiffs conclude that the Plaintiffs' Initial Proposal is "fair, reasonable, and in the best interests of Genesis and Jesus Alvarez."

See Garcia v. Middle Rio Grande Conservancy Dist., 1983-NMCA-047, ¶ 22, 99 N.M. 802, 808, 664 P.2d 1000, 1006, overruled on other grounds by Montoya v. AKAL Sec., Inc., 1992-NMSC-056, ¶¶ 11-12, 114 N.M. 354, 356-57, 838 P.2d 971, 973-74; UJI 13-801 NMRA. Mutual assent is ordinarily found “when one party makes an offer, and the other party accepts the offer,” and is “based on objective evidence, not the private, undisclosed thoughts of the parties.” UJI 13-816 NMRA; Pope v. Gap, Inc., 1998-NMCA-103, ¶ 13, 125 N.M. 376, 380, 961 P.2d 1283, 1287.

These sections do not expressly authorize appointment of a guardian ad litem for an infant plaintiff, and no other statute either authorizes or requires court approval of a settlement by a child, with or without representation through a guardian ad litem. See generally Garcia v. Middle Rio Grande Conservancy Dist., 99 N.M. 802, 808, 664 P.2d 1000, 1006 (Ct.App.), cert. denied, 99 N.M. 740, 663 P.2d 1197 (1983). We have no doubt that the court has power, either inherent or express under SCRA 1986, 1-017(C), to appoint a guardian ad litem for a minor plaintiff, whether or not the child is "otherwise represented."

” Garcia v. Middle Rio Grande Conservancy Dist., 1983-NMCA-047, ¶ 30, 664 P.2d 1000, 1006 (citations omitted), overruled on other grounds by Montoya v. AKAL Sec., Inc., 1992-NMCSC-56, ¶ 12, 838 P.2d 971, 974. “It is well-settled law that when the case involves children, the trial court has broad authority to fashion its rulings in [the] best interests of the children

” Garcia v. Middle Rio Grande Conservancy Dist., 1983-NMCA-047, ¶ 30, 664 P.2d 1000, 1006 (citations omitted), overruled on other grounds by Montoya v. AKAL Sec., Inc., 1992-NMCSC-56, ¶ 12, 838 P.2d 971, 974. “It is well-settled law that when the case involves children, the trial court has broad authority to fashion its rulings in [the] best interests of the children

” Garcia v. Middle Rio Grande Conservancy Dist., 1983-NMCA-047, ¶ 30, 664 P.2d 1000, 1006 (citations omitted), overruled on other grounds by Montoya v. AKAL Sec., Inc., 1992-NMCSC-56, ¶ 12, 838 P.2d 971, 974. “It is well-settled law that when the case involves children, the trial court has broad authority to fashion its rulings in [the] best interests of the children

., 1983-NMCA-047, ¶ 30, 664 P.2d 1000, 1006 (citations omitted), overruled on other grounds by Montoya v. AKAL Sec., Inc., 1992-NMSC-56, ¶ 12, 838 P.2d 971, 974.

"A trial court in an action involving minor children has a special obligation to see that they are properly represented, not only by their own representatives, but also by the court itself." Garcia v. Middle Rio Grande Conservancy Dist., 664 P.2d 1000, 1006 (N.M. Ct. App. 1983) (citations omitted), overruled on other grounds by Montoya v. AKAL Sec., Inc., 838 P.2d 971, 974 (N.M. 1992). "It is well-settled law that when the case involves children, the trial court has broad authority to fashion its rulings in [the] best interests of the children."

" Shelton v. Sloan, 1999-NMCA-048, ¶ 42, 127 N.M. 92. However, in New Mexico the "general rule is that a ... settlement is not binding on [a minor] in the absence of judicial approval." Collins v. Tabet, 111 N.M. 391, ¶ 30, 806 P.2d 40 (N.M. 1991) (citing Garcia v. Middle Rio Grande Conservancy Dist., 99 N.M. 802, ¶ 28, 664 P.2d 1000 (N.M. Ct. App. 1983)). Therefore, when a Rule 1-068 notice of settlement is filed in a case involving minors, the court must review the settlement before entering judgment and reject it if it is not fair to the minors.

The court 'has a special obligation to see that [children] are properly represented, not only by their own representatives, but also by the court it[]self.'" Landavazo v. Hearne, No. 03-1184, 2004 WL 7338237, at *1, n.2 (D.N.M. Feb. 18, 2004) (quoting Garcia v. Middle Rio Grande Conservancy Dist., 99 N.M. 802,808, 664 P.2d 1000, 1006 (Ct. App. 1983), overruled on other grounds by Montoya v. AKAL Sec., Inc., 114N.M. 354, 357, 838 P.2d 971, 974 (1992)). See also Salas v. Brigham, No. 08-1184, 2010 WL 11601205 (D.N.M. Dec. 22, 2010).