342 P.3d 698
N.M.2014Background
- Guardian (paternal aunt) was appointed kinship guardian under New Mexico’s Kinship Guardianship Act (KGA) in May 2007 and cared for the children until CYFD took custody in June 2010.
- CYFD filed abuse-and-neglect (ANA) proceedings in June 2010 against the parents and Guardian; the children’s court ordered a treatment/reunification plan that included the Guardian.
- In February 2012 CYFD changed the permanency plan to adoption and moved to dismiss Guardian from the ANA proceedings, arguing she lacked parental rights to be subject to termination and could not adopt or foster per CYFD policy.
- Children’s court held an evidentiary hearing (stating the formal Rules of Evidence would not apply) and granted CYFD’s motion, dismissing Guardian without revoking the kinship guardianship under the KGA.
- The Court of Appeals reversed, holding Guardian was a necessary and indispensable party; the Supreme Court granted certiorari and affirmed the Court of Appeals on different grounds.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (CYFD) | Defendant's Argument (Guardian) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a kinship guardian may be involuntarily dismissed from ANA proceedings without first revoking the kinship guardianship under the KGA | Omission of “guardian” from ANA termination provisions means guardian has no parental rights to divest and may be dismissed | Kinship guardian has parental-like rights under the KGA and must be afforded KGA revocation procedures before dismissal | Kinship guardians are entitled to a KGA revocation hearing (with Rules of Evidence) before involuntary dismissal from ANA proceedings; dismissal without revocation was contrary to law |
| Whether children’s court lacked jurisdiction to revoke a kinship guardianship appointed by family court | Children’s court lacks jurisdiction; only the family court that appointed the guardian retains authority | Children’s court has concurrent jurisdiction during ANA proceedings to hear KGA revocation motions | Family courts retain continuing but not exclusive jurisdiction; children’s courts have concurrent jurisdiction to conduct KGA revocation hearings during ANA proceedings |
| Whether kinship guardians are "necessary and indispensable" parties under civil Rule 1-019 to ANA termination proceedings | Guardian is not a necessary/indispensable party because Rule 1-019 is civil and not controlling in children’s court | Guardian should be treated as integral given parental-like rights under the KGA | Kinship guardians are not necessary and indispensable parties under Rule 1-019, but the KGA nonetheless grants them a statutory right to a revocation hearing prior to dismissal |
| Whether Father’s procedural due process rights were violated by dismissal of Guardian without full opportunity to object | Father claims lack of opportunity to preserve placement with relative and to influence dismissal | CYFD asserts issue not preserved and Father had multiple chances to participate | Court did not decide on due process claim as unnecessary given holding that Guardian is entitled to a revocation hearing; Father will have opportunity to participate in any revocation proceedings |
Key Cases Cited
- Maria C. (In re Rudolfo L.), 136 N.M. 53, 94 P.3d 796 (N.M. Ct. App. 2004) (describing ANA filing, counsel, and hearing timelines and protections)
- Bank of New York v. Romero, 320 P.3d 1 (N.M. 2014) (statutory interpretation reviewed de novo)
- Griego v. Oliver, 316 P.3d 865 (N.M. 2014) (primary goal in interpreting statutes is to effectuate legislative intent)
- Freedom C. v. Brian D. (In re Guardianship of Patrick D.), 280 P.3d 909 (N.M. 2012) (look first to plain language but also to purpose)
- Benjamin O. (In re Lakota C.), 160 P.3d 601 (N.M. Ct. App. 2007) (Children’s Code should be read as an entirety to preserve family unity)
- Pamela R.D.G. (In re Pamela A.G.), 134 P.3d 746 (N.M. 2006) (review of due process claims in children’s proceedings)