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 (CYFD) filing a petition against Talieha P. (Mother) concerning the welfare of Austin D. (Child). The petition led to the district court adjudicating the Child as neglected, based on findings related to the lack of parental care and control or subsistence provided by the Mother.

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Petitioner-Appellee (CYFD): Argued that the Child was left without proper parental care and control or subsistence, education, medical, or other care necessary for the child's well-being due to the failure or refusal of the Mother to provide them when she was able to do so.
• Respondent-Appellant (Mother): Contended that CYFD failed to meet its burden of showing by clear and convincing evidence that the Child was neglected. She pointed out that at the time CYFD filed its petition, she was no longer in the Child's life or responsible for him, suggesting that the Child was essentially emancipated.

Legal Issues

• Whether the evidence was adequate to support the district court’s conclusion that the Child was neglected due to the lack of parental care and control or subsistence provided by the Mother.
• Whether it was appropriate for CYFD to file a petition in this case.

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court’s order adjudicating the Child as neglected.

Reasons

• The Court, consisting of Judges Kristina Bogardus, Jennifer L. Attrep, and J. Miles Hanisee, found the evidence sufficient to support the district court's conclusion of neglect. The Court was unpersuaded by the Mother's arguments against the adequacy of CYFD's evidence and her assertion that CYFD should have focused on assisting the Child towards emancipation instead of adjudicating him as neglected. The Court noted that the Children’s Code does not limit CYFD's ability to file such petitions and that the Mother's citations to the Emancipation of Minors Act did not support her claim that CYFD's actions were improper. Additionally, the Court chose not to address the mootness argument raised by the Mother, as it sought a review of the substantive merits of her appeal, which was provided (paras 1-6).