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 State of New Mexico's Children, Youth & Families Department's (CYFD) adjudication of abuse and neglect against a mother, Tia M., concerning her children, Alayna H., Haven H., and Griffen H. The adjudication was based on an incident at a barbeque that escalated out of control, involving parental inebriation, the discharge of a firearm, and the children's resultant confusion and anxiety, leading them to seek help. This event was not isolated, with the home having previous issues related to drinking and potential domestic violence (para 5).

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Appellant (Mother): Argued that the district court's findings of abuse and neglect were inconsistent with New Mexico law and policy, which directs that children should only be taken into state custody when absolutely necessary. She also contended that the trauma of placing the children in state custody outweighed the risk of allowing them to remain at home and challenged the initial ex parte custody determination (paras 2-3, 7).
• Appellee (State of New Mexico ex rel. Children, Youth & Families Department): [Not applicable or not found]

Legal Issues

• Whether the district court's findings of abuse and neglect by the mother are inconsistent with New Mexico law and policy regarding the necessity of taking children into state custody.
• Whether a single incident, as opposed to a course of conduct, is sufficient to support removal or a determination of abuse and/or neglect (para 4).

Disposition

• The motion to amend the docketing statement was denied.
• The adjudication of abuse and neglect was affirmed (para 1).

Reasons

• The Court, led by Chief Judge J. Miles Hanisee and concurred by Judges Julie J. Vargas and Jennifer L. Attrep, found that the mother's motion to amend the docketing statement did not establish good cause for amendment. The Court held that the district court's findings were based on clear and convincing evidence of abuse and neglect, considering the level of parental inebriation, the discharge of a firearm, the children's confusion and anxiety, and the fact that this was not an isolated incident. The Court also noted that the mother's argument regarding the trauma of state custody did not outweigh the established risk to the children of remaining in the home. Furthermore, the Court found that the mother's challenge to the initial custody determination and her policy arguments were not supported by authority or the facts of the case. The Court concluded that the district court did not err in its adjudication of abuse and neglect (paras 3-10).