State Ex Rel. Children, Youth & Families Department v. Keon H., 387 P.3d 313

CYFD filed abuse-and-neglect proceedings and obtained ex parte custody of Anhayla; Father pleaded no contest to abuse and the court adopted a treatment plan in May 2013 that initially required only a psychosocial assessment.
Permanency hearings in Nov. 2013 and Feb. 2014 reflected CYFD’s recommendation of adoption; CYFD reported Father made little progress and filed a motion to terminate parental rights (TPR) in March 2014.
A first TPR hearing occurred in Aug. 2014; the matter was recessed for ~6 months. After that hearing CYFD mailed Father a psychosocial assessment and he returned it promptly; CYFD then proposed a more detailed (but not court-adopted) treatment plan.
The record is ambiguous about the timing and duration of Father’s incarcerations and about how often CYFD attempted to contact or locate him before the TPR motion; CYFD’s pre-TPR outreach was limited and largely undocumented.
The district court found abuse and that conditions were unlikely to change, and—despite criticizing CYFD’s handling—concluded CYFD had made reasonable efforts and terminated Father’s rights.
The Court of Appeals reversed, holding CYFD failed to produce clear-and-convincing evidence that it made reasonable efforts to assist Father (the psychosocial assessment was not timely provided and the amended plan was never court-adopted before termination).

Issue	CYFD (Plaintiff) Argument	Father (Defendant) Argument	Held
Whether CYFD made the "reasonable efforts" required by §32A-4-28(B)(2)	CYFD argues it made reasonable efforts and Father’s noncompliance and incarcerations prevented reunification	CYFD never timely provided required services (psychosocial assessment) or persistent contact while Father was incarcerated	Reversed: CYFD did not present clear-and-convincing evidence of reasonable efforts
Whether Father should have been given more time to complete a treatment plan	CYFD maintains termination was appropriate given Father’s failures and the child’s needs	Father contends that, if timely informed and contacted, he likely would have engaged when released	Court did not decide permanency merits on remand; held lack of evidence of reasonable efforts requires reversal so TPR cannot stand now

State ex rel. Children, Youth & Families Dep’t v. William M., 141 N.M. 765, 161 P.3d 262 (N.M. Ct. App. 2007) (reasonable-efforts upheld where CYFD maintained prison contact, provided interpreter and visits, and father’s incarceration/unwillingness prevented reunification)
State ex rel. Children, Youth & Families Dep’t v. Hector C., 144 N.M. 222, 185 P.3d 1072 (N.M. Ct. App. 2008) (reasonable-efforts analysis where CYFD arranged visits and post-release services though father could not complete plan while incarcerated)
State ex rel. Children, Youth & Families Dep’t v. Benjamin O., 141 N.M. 692, 160 P.3d 601 (N.M. Ct. App. 2007) (court criticized CYFD’s insufficient assistance on housing/employment and stressed need for documented efforts)
State ex rel. Children, Youth & Families Dep’t v. Patricia H., 132 N.M. 299, 47 P.3d 859 (N.M. Ct. App. 2002) (reasonable efforts depend on parent cooperation and intractability of problems; no fixed time requirement)
State ex rel. Children, Youth & Families Dep’t v. Nathan H., 370 P.3d 782 (N.M. Ct. App. 2016) (three findings required for TPR: abuse/neglect, conditions unlikely to change, and reasonable efforts by CYFD)