State v. Michael H. (In Re Jayda'Mae S.)
417 P.3d 1130
| N.M. Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Child born March 2015; CYFD took custody April 11, 2016 and filed an abuse/neglect petition naming Mother and Father. Mother pled no contest to neglect. Father was adjudicated as having neglected Child by abandonment.
- Mother testified she told Father she was pregnant when three months along; Father initially acknowledged paternity and said he would take responsibility, then ceased contact and provided no financial support. Father first met Child at about 15 months old at a CYFD-facilitated visit.
- CYFD worker testified Father was contacted in April 2016, claimed he once had a vasectomy, later acknowledged timeline errors, and left a voicemail expressing a wish to relinquish parental rights. Father has multiple other children but had no prior CYFD history.
- District court found by clear and convincing evidence that Father (1) left Child in Mother’s care where Child was neglected, (2) provided no support or communication for the statutory period, and (3) was on notice he was likely the father. Court credited Mother over Father.
- Father appealed, arguing (a) he lacked knowledge Mother would neglect Child so he had “justifiable cause” for non-contact, and (b) absence of definitive DNA proof of paternity meant he could not be adjudicated for abandonment. Court of Appeals affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (CYFD) | Defendant's Argument (Father) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Father’s failure to provide support/communication while Child was in Mother’s custody constituted abandonment/neglect | Father had notice he was likely the father and failed to take steps to support or ensure Child’s welfare; abandonment requires no justifiable cause for leaving child without support/communication for the statutory period | Father argued he did not know Mother would neglect the child, so he had "justifiable cause" for not intervening | Held: Lack of knowledge that Mother would neglect is not justifiable cause; non-custodial parents have an affirmative duty to ensure child’s care and safety; abandonment/neglect finding affirmed |
| Whether lack of DNA confirmation of paternity is "justifiable cause" for failing to support or communicate | CYFD: notice and admissions by Father put burden on him to act (support, communicate, or obtain testing); absence of DNA proof is not a defense | Father: without definitive DNA proof he was not clearly identified as the biological father and thus could not be found to have abandoned the child | Held: Lack of certain DNA confirmation is not a defense when father had notice and acknowledged paternity; he bore responsibility to seek testing or otherwise act, so adjudication stands |
| Whether abandonment standard in Children’s Code incorporates criminal-child-abandonment elements | CYFD: civil abuse/neglect statute has different purpose (protect child) and does not import criminal elements requiring exposure-to-harm showing | Father: urges adopting Stephenson construction (criminal standard: exposure to risk of harm and custody/control) into civil abandonment | Held: Rejected; abuse/neglect proceeding is civil and focuses on child safety; criminal standard is not incorporated |
| Whether facts supported clear-and-convincing evidence standard | CYFD: testimony, Mother’s no-contest plea, and Father’s admissions provided clear-and-convincing proof of notice, non-support, and non-contact | Father: contested certain findings as unsupported | Held: Viewing evidence in favor of prevailing party, district court could properly find abandonment and neglect by clear-and-convincing evidence; appellate court will not reweigh credibility |
Key Cases Cited
- State ex rel. Children, Youth & Families Dep’t v. Shawna C., 114 P.3d 367 (N.M. Ct. App. 2005) (clarifies clear-and-convincing standard in abuse/neglect proceedings)
- State ex rel. Children, Youth & Families Dep’t v. Cosme V., 215 P.3d 747 (N.M. Ct. App. 2009) (non-custodial parent may be found to neglect children by failing to take an active role in ensuring their well-being)
- Helen G. v. Mark J.H., 175 P.3d 914 (N.M. 2008) (a father on notice of paternity must act diligently to preserve parental rights; mere biological connection is insufficient)
- In re D.M.M., 955 P.2d 618 (Kan. Ct. App. 1997) (knowledge of possible paternity does not absolve duty to support during pregnancy; failure to act can constitute abandonment)
- In re Chance J., 776 N.W.2d 519 (Neb. 2009) (suspicions about paternity do not justify abandoning parental obligations; father had means to confirm and therefore obligation to act)
- State v. Stephenson, 389 P.3d 272 (N.M. 2017) (criminal-child-abandonment standard discussed; Court of Appeals declined to import its elements into civil abuse/neglect statute)