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 the Respondent (Mother) to her children, Samuel E., Liam E., Reynna E., and Christopher E. The Children, Youth & Families Department (CYFD) of New Mexico initiated the proceedings, leading to the district court's decision to terminate the Mother's parental rights.

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Petitioner-Appellee (CYFD): [Not applicable or not found]
• Respondent-Appellant (Mother): Argued against the termination of her parental rights, questioning whether CYFD met its burden of investigating the suitability of family members for placement, guardianship, or adoption of the children.
• Respondent (Father): [Not applicable or not found]
• Guardian Ad Litem: [Not applicable or not found]

Legal Issues

• Whether the district court erred in terminating the Mother's parental rights.
• Whether CYFD met its burden of investigating the suitability of family members for placement, guardianship, or adoption of the children.

Disposition

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

Reasons

• Per J. Miles Hanisee, Chief Judge (Jennifer L. Attrep, Judge, and Zachary A. Ives, Judge, concurring):
  The Court considered the Mother's memorandum in opposition to the proposed summary disposition, which reiterated her appellate issues without presenting new facts, authority, or persuasive argument. The Court found that the Mother did not meet the burden of clearly pointing out errors in fact or law in the proposed disposition (para 2). Furthermore, the Court disagreed with the Mother's implication that a remand might be warranted, noting her failure to address specific concerns raised in the calendar notice regarding the investigation of family members for placement of the children. The Court highlighted that some children were placed in relative foster care, suggesting that an investigation into family member suitability had occurred (para 3). The decision to affirm was based on the reasons discussed in the notice of proposed disposition and the memorandum opinion, emphasizing the presumption of correctness of the trial court's actions and the appellant's responsibility to affirmatively demonstrate error (para 4).