State ex rel. CYFD v. Keon H.
2017 NMCA 4
N.M. Ct. App.2016Background
- CYFD removed Anhayla H. from parents’ custody in Feb 2013; Father (Keon H.) pleaded no contest to abuse allegations and the court adopted a CYFD treatment plan that, for over a year, required only a psychosocial assessment.
- CYFD reported little parental progress at permanency hearings and moved to terminate Father’s parental rights in March 2014; the TPR hearings were held August 2014 and Feb 2015 (with a six-month recess).
- Before the first TPR hearing CYFD had limited contact: one MDC visit (Nov 2013) and reports that Father missed appointments; CYFD did not send the psychosocial assessment to Father until after the first TPR hearing (Sept 2014). Father returned the assessment promptly.
- CYFD amended a proposed treatment plan after the first hearing (adding assessments, participation in medical appointments, substance treatment, monthly contact, etc.), but the revised plan was apparently never formally adopted before the second TPR hearing.
- The district court found abuse/neglect and that reunification was unlikely, and nonetheless concluded CYFD had made reasonable efforts; the Court of Appeals reversed, holding CYFD failed to present clear and convincing evidence of reasonable efforts.
Issues
| Issue | CYFD's Argument | Father (Keon) Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether CYFD made the required "reasonable efforts" to assist Father under § 32A-4-28(B)(2) | CYFD argued its efforts (visits, letters after first hearing, eventual monthly contact, and attempted outreach) satisfied the statutory duty | Father argued CYFD never timely implemented or followed up on a meaningful treatment plan and failed to inform/assist him while incarcerated | Court held CYFD failed to proffer clear and convincing evidence of reasonable efforts and reversed the TPR order |
| Whether Father should have been given more time/opportunities before TPR | CYFD argued reunification was impossible and termination was justified given Father’s lack of progress | Father argued lack of information and outreach by CYFD (especially while incarcerated) deprived him of the opportunity to comply | Court noted Father’s incarcerations hampered participation but emphasized CYFD’s duty; insufficient evidence of effort means reversal (remand permitted new actions) |
| Adequacy and adoption of the treatment plan | CYFD treated the single-assessment plan as sufficient and later proposed expanded tasks following the TPR filing | Father argued the plan was never meaningfully pursued or timely communicated | Court found the plan remained effectively one-item for over a year, CYFD failed to follow up, and the revised plan was not adopted—undermining CYFD’s showing of reasonable efforts |
| Effect of incarceration on CYFD’s obligations | CYFD relied on father’s unavailability/incarceration as limiting factors | Father argued incarceration increased CYFD’s obligation to communicate and supply workable means to comply | Court reaffirmed incarceration does not relieve CYFD’s duty to make reasonable efforts; here CYFD’s limited outreach was insufficient |
Key Cases Cited
- State ex rel. Children, Youth & Families Dep’t v. Hector C., 185 P.3d 1072 (N.M. Ct. App. 2008) (reasonable-efforts analysis where agency maintained contact, arranged services, and provided visits while parent incarcerated)
- State ex rel. Children, Youth & Families Dep’t v. William M., 161 P.3d 262 (N.M. Ct. App. 2007) (upholding TPR where CYFD visited father in prison, communicated through counsel and phone, and provided interpreter and evaluations)
- State ex rel. Children, Youth & Families Dep’t v. Benjamin O., 206 P.3d 171 (N.M. Ct. App. 2009) (agency must demonstrate efforts to assist parent with housing/employment; insufficient assistance undermines TPR)
- State ex rel. Children, Youth & Families Dep’t v. Patricia H., 47 P.3d 859 (N.M. Ct. App. 2002) (reasonable efforts depend on parent cooperation and problem recalcitrance; no fixed time period required)
- State ex rel. Children, Youth & Families Dep’t v. Nathan H., 370 P.3d 782 (N.M. Ct. App. 2016) (three required findings for TPR: abuse/neglect, conditions unlikely to change, and CYFD made reasonable efforts)