4 N.M. 46
N.M.2013Background
- Department received referral in 2008 alleging Mother’s drug use, neglect, and lack of supervision leading to Child’s removal.
- Child tested positive for opiates and showed physical concerns; Child was placed in foster care, with an ex parte custody order issued January 9, 2009.
- Mother entered Crossroads residential program in March 2009; Child initially remained with her, but Crossroads discharged Mother June 2009 and Child later placed with foster parents in Las Vegas.
- Permanency hearings began in October 2009; plan initially aimed at reunification, with later concerns about Mother’s progress and sobriety, and relocation of services to Santa Fe when case was re-assigned.
- Colin, Family relative, expressed interest in placement; in January–April 2010 he became kinship guardian of Francisco and was licensed as a foster parent by April 2010.
- Second permanency hearing in April 2010 changed, from reunification to adoption; Colin sought intervenor status in 2010; termination hearing held Oct 2010–Feb 2011; Mother’s parental rights were ultimately terminated on April 8, 2011.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Reasonableness of Department’s efforts to assist Mother | Mother argues Department failed to reasonably assist her to address causes. | Department contends efforts were reasonable given circumstances and cooperation. | Reasonable efforts found; no reversal of termination. |
| Impact of placement proximity on outcome | Mother contends Las Vegas placement created obstacle to visitation and reunification. | Placement distance did not prejudge outcome; transportation and visits were arranged. | Proximity did not affect outcome; termination upheld. |
| Colin’s standing to appeal and relative-placement duties | Colin argues Department failed to identify/consider relatives, violating Section 32A-4-25.1(D). | Department argues Colin lacked standing on appeal; status as intervenor supports standing. | Colin has standing; remand to complete home study and consider Colin as relative placement. |
| Effect of relative-placement failures on termination | Colin/Mother argue failures to identify relatives taint termination decision. | Failures at permanency stage not controlling for termination decision; standard of proof remains clear and convincing. | Termination affirmed; remand to evaluate Colin as placement option without reversing termination. |
Key Cases Cited
- Maria C., 136 P.3d 796 (N.M. App. 2004) (child welfare purposes; best interests paramount; family unity encouraged)
- Brandy S., 168 P.3d 1129 (N.M. App. 2007) (due process and reasonable efforts standard in abuse/neglect cases)
- Benjamin O., 160 P.3d 601 (N.M. App. 2007) ( permanency hearing and relative-placement considerations)
- Reuben & Elizabeth O., 725 P.2d 844 (N.M. Ct. App. 1986) (appellate deference to trial court weighing of evidence)