State ex rel. CYFD v. William C., Jr.
2017 NMCA 58
| N.M. Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Child was removed in Sept. 2013; Father and Mother entered no-contest pleas to neglect; Department adopted a treatment plan in Feb. 2014.
- Department filed a first motion to terminate parental rights in April 2015; after a June 11, 2015 hearing the court denied that motion but left custody with the Department.
- Department filed a second motion to terminate Father’s rights in Oct. 2015; a Dec. 10, 2015 hearing followed where the court allowed evidence predating the June hearing.
- Evidence showed Father’s inconsistent participation in drug testing, missed substance‑abuse and mental‑health appointments, unstable housing, limited visitation, and conflicting psychological/clinical assessments diagnosing substance‑use and serious mental‑health issues.
- The court found Father had not alleviated the conditions causing neglect and that those conditions were unlikely to change despite reasonable Department efforts, and it terminated Father’s parental rights under NMSA § 32A‑4‑28(B)(2).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Department) | Defendant's Argument (Father) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the court could admit evidence predating the first termination hearing | Dept. argued prior conduct and service history remained relevant to show ongoing inability to parent and Dept. efforts | Father argued Benjamin O. I restricts second‑hearing evidence to events occurring after the first denial; earlier conduct should be excluded | Court held Benjamin O. I does not apply here (no reversed adjudication); prior evidence was admissible and relevant |
| Whether clear and convincing evidence supported termination under § 32A‑4‑28(B)(2) | Dept. argued Father failed to remedy causes of neglect (substance abuse, mental health, housing, visitation) despite reasonable referrals and efforts | Father argued he made efforts, faced service/communication problems, had some participation and contested adequacy/consistency of assessments | Court held the evidence, viewed in Dept.’s favor, met the clear and convincing standard; Father had not alleviated conditions and was unlikely to in foreseeable future |
Key Cases Cited
- State ex rel. Children, Youth & Families Dep’t v. Benjamin O., 160 P.3d 601 (N.M. Ct. App. 2007) (discusses limits on relying on reversed adjudications in termination proceedings)
- State ex rel. Children, Youth & Families Dep’t v. Benjamin O., 206 P.3d 171 (N.M. Ct. App. 2009) (affirmed termination after remand where additional allegations supported termination)
- State ex rel. Children, Youth & Families Dep’t v. Shawna C., 114 P.3d 367 (N.M. Ct. App. 2005) (reversed adjudication as to father and prompted procedural questions addressed in Benjamin O.)
- State ex rel. Children, Youth & Families Dep’t v. Vanessa C., 997 P.2d 833 (N.M. Ct. App. 2000) (describes clear and convincing standard in termination cases)