State ex rel. CYFD v. William C., Jr., 35,472

Child was removed by the Department in September 2013 for parental substance abuse, domestic violence, and mental-health concerns; Father entered a no-contest plea to neglect and a treatment plan was adopted in February 2014.
The Department filed a first motion to terminate Father’s parental rights (filed April 2015); after an evidentiary hearing on June 11, 2015 the court denied that motion but kept custody with the Department.
The Department filed a second motion to terminate Father’s rights on October 16, 2015; a second hearing was held December 10, 2015.
At the second hearing the court allowed evidence about events occurring before the June 2015 hearing as well as post-June developments; testimony documented Father’s inconsistent engagement with referrals, missed assessments and drug tests, unstable housing/work, limited visitation, and mental-health/substance-use diagnoses.
The court found Father had not alleviated the causes and conditions that led to Child’s removal and was unlikely to do so in the foreseeable future despite reasonable Department efforts, and it terminated his parental rights; Father appealed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Department)	Defendant's Argument (Father)	Held
Whether the court erred by admitting evidence predating the prior (June 2015) termination hearing	Department: prior conduct and the full record are relevant to assess whether conditions are alleviated; Benjamin O. I does not bar such evidence where adjudication stands	Father: under Benjamin O. I the second hearing should be limited to events after the first denial; prior evidence is unfairly prejudicial	Court: No error — Benjamin O. I concerns reversed adjudications; where neglect adjudication stands, prior evidence about causes/efforts is admissible
Whether there was clear-and-convincing evidence that conditions causing neglect were not alleviated and unlikely to change despite reasonable efforts	Department: testimony and records showed inconsistent participation, missed assessments/tests, unstable housing/visits, and professional diagnoses supporting termination	Father: he made some efforts, had confusing caseworker interactions, treatment-provider closures, and differing assessments; Department did not make reasonable, clear efforts	Court: Held sufficient evidence under §32A-4-28(B)(2) to terminate — Father failed to remedy causes and was unlikely to in foreseeable future

State ex rel. Children, Youth & Families Dep’t v. Benjamin O., 141 N.M. 692, 160 P.3d 601 (N.M. Ct. App. 2007) (limits use of reversed adjudications; permits new/current allegations but does not bar prior evidence when adjudication stands)
State ex rel. Children, Youth & Families Dep’t v. Benjamin O., 146 N.M. 60, 206 P.3d 171 (N.M. Ct. App. 2009) (upholds termination where clear findings supported abandonment and complied with Benjamin O. I)
State ex rel. Children, Youth & Families Dep’t v. Shawna C., 137 N.M. 687, 114 P.3d 367 (N.M. Ct. App. 2005) (addresses sufficiency of evidence for adjudication and context for subsequent termination proceedings)
State ex rel. Children, Youth & Families Dep’t v. Vanessa C., 128 N.M. 701, 997 P.2d 833 (N.M. Ct. App. 2000) (defines clear-and-convincing standard for termination)
In re Termination of Parental Rights of Eventyr J., 120 N.M. 463, 902 P.2d 1066 (N.M. Ct. App. 1995) (standard for "clear and convincing" evidence explained)
State ex rel. Children, Youth & Families Dep’t v. Michelle B., 130 N.M. 781, 32 P.3d 790 (N.M. Ct. App. 2001) (scope of appellate review of termination findings)
State ex rel. Children, Youth & Families Dep’t v. Patricia H., 132 N.M. 299, 47 P.3d 859 (N.M. Ct. App. 2002) (review standards; court will view evidence favorably to prevailing party)