Court of Appeals of New Mexico
Decision Information
Rule Set 12 - Rules of Appellate Procedure - cited by 9,472 documents
Citations - New Mexico Appellate Reports
Hennessy v. Duryea - cited by 662 documents
State v. Harris - cited by 442 documents
State v. Mondragon - cited by 552 documents
Decision Content
This decision of the New Mexico Court of Appeals was not selected for publication in the New Mexico Appellate Reports. Refer to Rule 12-405 NMRA for restrictions on the citation of unpublished decisions. Electronic decisions may contain computer-generated errors or other deviations from the official version filed by the Court of Appeals.
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO
No. A-1-CA-40537
STATE OF NEW MEXICO ex rel.
CHILDREN, YOUTH & FAMILIES
DEPARTMENT,
Petitioner-Appellee,
v.
GERALDO G.,
Respondent-Appellant,
and
JASMINE T.,
Respondent,
IN THE MATTER OF ISAIAH G.,
OLIVIA G., and NOAH T.,
Children.
APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF LEA COUNTY
Lee A. Kirksey, District Judge
Children, Youth & Families Department
Mary E. McQueeny, Chief Children’s Court Attorney
Santa Fe, NM
Kelly P. O’Neill, Assistant Children’s Court Attorney
Albuquerque, NM
for Appellee
Cravens Law LLC
Richard H. Cravens, IV
Albuquerque, NM
for Appellant
Laura K. Castillo
Hobbs, NM
Guardian Ad Litem
MEMORANDUM OPINION
IVES, Judge.
{1} Respondent Geraldo G. (Father) appeals from the district court’s judgment terminating his parental rights. [3 RP 728-56] In this Court’s notice of proposed disposition, we proposed summary affirmance. [CN 9] Father filed a memorandum in opposition, which we have duly considered. Remaining unpersuaded, we affirm.
{2} In his memorandum in opposition, Father repeats the presentation of the issues and facts asserted and argued in Father’s docketing statement. [MIO 7-9] Father has not asserted any facts, law, or argument that persuade this Court that our notice of proposed disposition was erroneous. See Hennessy v. Duryea, 1998-NMCA-036, ¶ 24, 124 N.M. 754, 955 P.2d 683 (“Our courts have repeatedly held that, in summary calendar cases, the burden is on the party opposing the proposed disposition to clearly point out errors in fact or law.”); State v. Mondragon, 1988-NMCA-027, ¶ 10, 107 N.M. 421, 759 P.2d 1003 (stating that a party responding to a summary calendar notice must come forward and specifically point out errors of law and fact, and the repetition of earlier arguments does not fulfill this requirement), superseded by statute on other grounds as stated in State v. Harris, 2013-NMCA-031, ¶ 3, 297 P.3d 374.
{3} Accordingly, for the reasons stated in our notice of proposed disposition and herein, we affirm the termination of Father’s parental rights.
{4} IT IS SO ORDERED.
ZACHARY A. IVES, Judge
WE CONCUR:
JACQUELINE R. MEDINA, Judge
JANE B. YOHALEM, Judge