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 biological father of a child, born in May 2018, appealed the termination of his parental rights. The child was placed in the custody of the Children, Youth & Families Department (the Department) in August 2018 due to neglect/abuse, with the father not initially identified in the petition. The father was later added as a party to the neglect/abuse petition in February 2020, after a paternity test confirmed his biological relationship. He expressed a desire to obtain custody of the child. The district court terminated his parental rights based on several statutory grounds, including neglect by abandonment (paras 3-7).

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Respondent-Appellant (Father): Argued that the district court erred in terminating his parental rights based on NMSA 1978, Section 32A-4-28(B)(1) (2005), insufficient evidence to support termination on the basis of presumptive abandonment or neglect by abandonment, and the Department's failure to show reasonable efforts to find a suitable relative placement for the child (para 1).
• Petitioner-Appellee (the Department): Contended that statutory grounds for termination were met, including neglect by abandonment, and argued that reasonable efforts were made to assist the father in adjusting the conditions that rendered him unable to properly care for the child (paras 8, 13-14, 19-20, 22-24, 26-29, 32-34).

Legal Issues

• Whether the district court erred in terminating the father's parental rights based on NMSA 1978, Section 32A-4-28(B)(1) (2005).
• Whether there was sufficient evidence to support termination of parental rights on the basis of presumptive abandonment, pursuant to Section 32A-4-28(B)(3), or neglect by abandonment, pursuant to Section 32A-4-28(B)(2).
• Whether the Department failed to show that it made reasonable efforts to find a suitable relative placement for the child (para 1).

Disposition

• The district court’s determination that the Department met its burden under Section 32A-4-28(B)(1) was vacated, but the termination of the father’s parental rights was otherwise affirmed (para 35).

Reasons

• The Court of Appeals found that the district court erred in terminating the father’s parental rights under Section 32A-4-28(B)(1) because the father was present before the trial and expressed a desire to take responsibility for the child. However, the court affirmed the termination on other grounds, including clear and convincing evidence supporting the district court’s findings of presumptive abandonment and neglect by abandonment. The court also found that the Department made reasonable efforts to assist the father in adjusting the conditions of neglect and to place the child with a relative. The court emphasized the paramount concern for the child’s health and safety, noting the child’s special needs and the foster parents’ desire to adopt her. The court concluded that the causes and conditions of neglect were unlikely to change in the foreseeable future, supporting the termination of parental rights (paras 8-34).