State Ex Rel. Children, Youth & Families Department v. Yodell B., 367 P.3d 881

Child (an enrolled Navajo Nation member) was taken into CYFD custody after injuries and concerns about Mother's mental health; Father's whereabouts initially unknown.
Father was served and met with CYFD on Feb 22, 2012; a treatment plan required substance‑abuse assessment, parenting and domestic‑violence programs, visitation, employment/education, and stable housing; Father was primarily tasked with arranging services and releases so CYFD could verify progress.
Father pleaded no contest to neglect; CYFD reported limited contact and that Father did not complete most plan requirements; visitation attempts were not coordinated due to lack of contact/transportation.
CYFD moved to terminate parental rights on Sept 11, 2013; TPR trial occurred March 7, 2014; Mother voluntarily relinquished; Father’s counsel sought a continuance (denied); the district court terminated Father’s rights, finding active efforts were made “beyond a reasonable doubt.”
On appeal, the Court of Appeals reviewed whether CYFD met the ICWA active‑efforts requirement (25 U.S.C. § 1912(d)) and what evidentiary standard applies.

Issue	Father’s Argument	CYFD’s Argument	Held
Whether CYFD made the "active efforts" required by 25 U.S.C. § 1912(d)	CYFD’s efforts were insufficient and largely passive (merely gave a plan and referrals); therefore termination lacked the required predicate	CYFD argued it met active efforts by creating and explaining a treatment plan, referring services, offering visits, and attempting contact when Father became unreachable	Reversed: CYFD did not present clear and convincing evidence of active efforts; pointing Father to services and relying on him to secure them was passive and insufficient
Applicable standard of proof for § 1912(d) active‑efforts showing	(argued implicitly) Father urged heightened protection for ICWA parents	CYFD accepted the district court’s application of a heightened standard (“beyond a reasonable doubt”) but did not contest standard on appeal	Court held clear and convincing evidence is the proper standard for § 1912(d) in New Mexico termination proceedings

In re Esther V., 149 N.M. 315 (N.M. 2011) (ICWA compliance—district court must make findings on § 1912(d) and (e) at adjudication)
State ex rel. Children, Youth & Families Dep’t v. Arthur C., 149 N.M. 472 (N.M. Ct. App. 2011) (upheld finding of active efforts where evidence supported the heightened district court standard)
State ex rel. Children, Youth & Families Dep’t v. Benjamin O., 146 N.M. 60 (N.M. 2009) (standard for sufficiency review in termination matters; clear and convincing standard referenced)
A.A. v. State, Dep’t of Family & Youth Servs., 982 P.2d 256 (Alaska 1999) (distinguishes active versus passive efforts; active efforts require the caseworker to ‘‘take the client through the steps’’ rather than merely refer)