State ex rel. CYFD v. Donna E.
35,064
| N.M. Ct. App. | Jun 8, 2017Background
- In June 2010 CYFD removed two children (Son and Daughter) after Son disclosed sexual abuse by an older sibling and reported exposure to pornography in the home; Respondents (Mother Donna E. and Father Harley E.) pleaded no contest to abuse/neglect allegations and entered a treatment plan.
- Visits between Respondents and the children progressed to unsupervised overnights for Daughter, but in July 2011 visitation was suspended after a detective testified that some computer images seized from Respondents’ home might depict minors.
- CYFD changed the permanency plan to adoption; litigation and multiple continuances followed, including long delays in computer forensics and in CYFD’s prosecution of reunification steps; visitation with Daughter remained suspended for years.
- In March 2015 a three-day termination hearing was held; the district court found both children abused/neglected but terminated Respondents’ parental rights only as to Daughter under the presumptive-abandonment statute (Section 32A-4-28(B)(3)), concluding the parent–child relationship had disintegrated and a bonded foster family existed.
- The district court made extensive findings criticizing CYFD’s handling of the case, but did not find or supply evidence that Respondents caused the disintegration of the bond with Daughter.
- The Court of Appeals reversed the termination as to Daughter, holding Respondents rebutted the abandonment presumption because there was no evidence they caused the relationship’s disintegration; the case was remanded for a custody determination focused on Daughter’s best interests.
Issues
| Issue | CYFD's Argument | Respondents' Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether presumptive abandonment under Section 32A-4-28(B)(3) was established | Statutory elements (extended placement, disintegration, psychological bond with foster family, child preference, adoptive desire) were met and Respondents failed to rebut; suspension of visits was reasonable given pornography and Son’s conduct | The disintegration was caused by CYFD’s and the court’s long suspension of contact (based on unconfirmed forensic claims) and administrative delay; Respondents sought contact and did not cause the separation | Reversed: presumption rebutted. No clear and convincing evidence that Respondents caused the disintegration with Daughter. |
| Whether parental conduct must be shown to have caused relationship disintegration | Cites Adoption of J.J.B. but contends proof may be inferred from circumstances and evidence of wrongdoing (pornography, Son’s issues) | Argues Adoption of J.J.B. requires a showing that the parent’s conduct caused the breakdown; here no such factual finding or evidence exists | Court reiterates Adoption of J.J.B.: abandonment requires parental conduct causing disintegration; absent findings/evidence, presumption is rebutted. |
| Whether delay, investigative and agency failures excuse or affect abandonment analysis | CYFD emphasizes law enforcement and forensic uncertainty, and asserts suspension was reasonable precaution | Respondents argue agency and judicial delay and uncoordinated reunification efforts caused loss of contact and memory in Daughter, undermining any abandonment finding | Court finds the record shows lengthy agency and court delay and suspension of visitation without evidence of parental misconduct toward Daughter; these facts support rebuttal. |
| Remedy and custody after reversal | CYFD implicitly argues stability with foster family favors terminating rights | Respondents seek reunification and reinstatement of parental rights | Court reverses termination; remands to district court to determine custody under best-interest and extraordinary-circumstances framework; temporary legal custody remains with CYFD pending that decision. |
Key Cases Cited
- Vanessa C. v. State ex rel. Children, Youth & Families Dep’t, 128 N.M. 701, 997 P.2d 833 (N.M. Ct. App. 2000) (standard for termination and clear-and-convincing burden)
- In re Termination of Parental Rights of Eventyr J., 120 N.M. 463, 902 P.2d 1066 (N.M. Ct. App. 1995) (definition of clear and convincing evidence)
- State ex rel. Children, Youth & Families Dep’t v. Lance K., 146 N.M. 286, 209 P.3d 778 (N.M. Ct. App. 2009) (reversal/custody considerations after termination reversal)
- Adoption of J.J.B., 119 N.M. 638, 894 P.2d 994 (N.M. 1995) (abandonment requires parental conduct that causes disintegration of the parent–child relationship)
- State ex rel. Children, Youth & Families Dep’t v. Benjamin O., 141 N.M. 692, 160 P.3d 601 (N.M. Ct. App. 2007) (parental rights as fundamental interests balanced against child welfare)
- In re Samantha D., 106 N.M. 184, 740 P.2d 1168 (N.M. Ct. App. 1987) (best-interests principle governing custody)
- Khalsa v. Puri, 344 P.3d 1036 (N.M. Ct. App. 2015) (district court discretion on attorney-fee awards)
- Landess v. Gardner Turf Grass, Inc., 145 N.M. 372, 198 P.3d 871 (N.M. Ct. App. 2008) (courts’ inherent power to award fees for frivolous or vexatious litigation)
- Harrison v. Bd. of Regents of Univ. of N.M., 311 P.3d 1236 (N.M. Ct. App. 2013) (district courts’ sanctioning authority)
- In re Adoption of Doe, 100 N.M. 764, 676 P.2d 1329 (N.M. 1984) (appellate courts expect parties to cite supporting authority; discretionary relief considerations)