State ex rel. CYFD v. Raymond D.
35,616
| N.M. Ct. App. | Jun 15, 2017Background
- Child (age 8 when taken into custody in Aug. 2013) required intensive mental-health treatment and repeatedly resided in psychiatric/residential facilities; brief placements with a foster home and with Father in Oct. 2013 ended due to behavioral incidents.
- Mother’s rights were also terminated (she failed to comply with treatment); Father pled no contest to neglect based on incarceration and stipulated that reunification efforts would be futile.
- Father was incarcerated from Nov. 2013, received an unexpected 2.5-year sentence in Apr. 2015 with parole expected June 2016; he had little or no contact with Child while imprisoned and could not complete classes due to security classification.
- CYFD moved to terminate parental rights (TPR) for neglect in June 2015; the TPR hearing occurred Jan. 22, 2016; the district court found termination in Child’s best interests and entered judgment Apr. 26, 2016.
- A therapist testified that inconsistent parental contact confused Child, increased emotional volatility and self-harm, and recommended limiting contact with Father; Father objected to part of that testimony as inadmissible lay opinion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (CYFD) | Defendant's Argument (Father) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether therapist testimony (that Child’s "limbo" caused confusion and self-harm) was admissible as lay opinion and whether the TPR decision depended on it | Admitted testimony supported that Child was harmed by continued legal limbo; but CYFD conceded the particular statement may be inadmissible and argued other admissible evidence still supports TPR | Objected that the challenged testimony required expert qualification and was erroneously admitted; if outcome rests on it, reversal is required | Court assumed (for purposes of appeal) the challenged statement was inadmissible but held the district court’s best-interests finding was nevertheless supported by other admissible evidence; affirmed TPR |
| Whether termination was supported by substantial admissible evidence of Child’s best interests given Father’s incarceration, lack of participation, and Child’s needs | Prompt termination was required to protect Child’s physical, mental, and emotional welfare given years in residential treatment, Father’s incarceration, limited contact, and uncertain ability to meet Child’s special needs soon | Argued he should have more time; that the inadmissible testimony was central to the court’s finding that delay was harmful | Court applied mixed fact/law standard, found substantial admissible evidence (Father’s incarceration, prior placement failure, Mother’s inconsistent contact, Child’s prolonged institutionalization, uncertain future and recidivism risk) supported finding that waiting would harm Child; affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Adoption of Randolph, 227 N.W.2d 634 (Wis. 1975) (describing best-interests determinations as mixed questions of fact and law and outlining review approach)