AI Generated Opinion Summaries

This summary was computer-generated without any editorial revision. It is not official, has not been checked for accuracy, and is NOT citable.

Facts

• The case involves the termination of parental rights of a father to his three children. The father was incarcerated when the abuse and neglect petition was filed. The Children, Youth and Families Department (the Department) took custody of the children and initiated proceedings to terminate the father's parental rights, citing neglect and abuse that rendered him unable to properly care for the children. The father was in and out of incarceration during the proceedings, which affected his ability to maintain contact with the Department and participate in efforts towards reunification with his children.

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Petitioner-Appellee (the Department): Argued that they made reasonable efforts to assist the father in remedying the conditions that led to his inability to care for his children, despite the father's incarceration and lack of contact.
• Respondent-Appellant (Father): Contended that the Department failed to make the reasonable efforts required by law to assist him in addressing the conditions of neglect and abuse, particularly before the court found such efforts to be futile. He also argued that the court's finding of reasonable efforts by the Department was not supported by substantial evidence.

Legal Issues

• Whether the Department made reasonable efforts to assist the father in remedying the conditions of neglect and abuse as required by NMSA 1978, Section 32A-4-28(B)(2).
• Whether the district court's finding that the Department made reasonable efforts was supported by substantial evidence.

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court order terminating the father's parental rights.

Reasons

• The Court of Appeals, per Judge Yohalem, found that the district court's determination that the Department made reasonable efforts to assist the father was supported by substantial evidence. The court emphasized that the Department's efforts must be viewed in the totality of the circumstances, from the filing of the petition to the termination of parental rights. The court noted that both the Department and the parent bear responsibility for efforts towards reunification, and the parent must cooperate with treatment plans and maintain contact with the Department. Despite the Department's admitted shortcomings in maintaining communication with the father during his incarceration, the court concluded that the Department's overall efforts, including attempts to locate the father and provide assistance upon his releases, were reasonable. The father's failure to take advantage of these efforts, particularly after being advised to contact the Department upon his release, contributed to the court's decision. The court's analysis was guided by precedent emphasizing the need for substantial evidence to support termination decisions and the requirement for the Department to make reasonable efforts under the law, considering the parent's cooperation and the challenges presented by the parent's circumstances, including incarceration (paras 2-14).