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 Children, Youth & Families Department (CYFD) of New Mexico against Destinee C. (Mother) and Miguel C. (Father), concerning the welfare of two children, Reylene C. and Liliana C. The core issue revolves around allegations of abuse and neglect, specifically that the Mother failed to protect the children from the Father's continued sexual abuse.

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Petitioner-Appellee (CYFD): Argued that the Mother failed to take reasonable steps to protect the children from the Father's sexual abuse.
• Respondent-Appellant (Mother): Contested the sufficiency of the evidence supporting the district court’s adjudicatory order, maintaining that the Father was solely responsible for the abuse and that circumstances beyond her control, including not having custody and being incarcerated, prevented her from protecting the children.

Legal Issues

• Whether the evidence was sufficient to prove that the Mother had abused or neglected the children by failing to protect them from the Father's sexual abuse.

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's adjudicatory order, finding against the Mother.

Reasons

• Per Hanisee, C.J., with Bogardus and Duffy, JJ., concurring: The Court considered the Mother's appeal and her memorandum in opposition to the proposed summary disposition, which challenged the sufficiency of the evidence regarding her role in the children's abuse and neglect. The Court found the Mother's arguments largely unresponsive to the issues at hand, particularly noting that a non-custodial parent still has a duty to ensure their child's welfare, a duty that persists even during incarceration (para 3). The Court also noted that the Mother's failure to cooperate with the district attorney led to the dismissal of charges against the Father, undermining her position (para 3). The request to reassign the matter to the general calendar for further review was rejected, as the Court saw no purpose in revisiting the evidence, especially given the Mother's failure to contest key facts relied upon for affirmance (para 4). The decision to affirm the district court's order was based on these considerations, alongside the principles of appellate review that favor viewing evidence in the light most favorable to the prevailing party and not re-weighing evidence (para 4).