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 New Mexico Children, Youth and Families Department (CYFD) taking custody of a child (J.S.) born on March 16, 2017, due to allegations of abuse and neglect by the mother, MacKenzie B. The allegations included that the child was drug-exposed at birth and physically neglected, with both the mother and child testing positive for methamphetamine immediately after the child's birth (para 2).

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Petitioner-Appellee (CYFD): Argued that the child was abused and neglected, citing evidence of the child and mother testing positive for methamphetamine at birth, the mother's erratic behavior, and her failure to comply with medical advice and CYFD's requirements for the child's care (paras 2, 9-16).
• Respondent-Appellant (Mother): Contended that the delay in proceedings violated her procedural due process rights, claimed there was not substantial evidence to support findings of abuse and neglect, and argued that the district court erred in admitting evidence of her drug tests (paras 4, 9, 17).

Legal Issues

• Whether the delay in proceedings warranted dismissal and violated the mother's procedural due process rights.
• Whether there was substantial evidence to support the district court’s findings of abuse and neglect.
• Whether the district court erred in admitting evidence of the mother's drug tests.

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's adjudication that the child was abused and neglected (para 1).

Reasons

• HANISEE, Chief Judge, with BOGARDUS and MEDINA, Judges concurring: The court found the mother's arguments regarding due process and the right to a speedy resolution undeveloped and therefore did not consider them. It concluded that the mother's counsel's objection during the closing argument at the adjudicatory hearing sufficiently preserved the issue of timeliness for appeal. The court held that the district court did not violate either Section 32A-4-19 or Rule 10-343 regarding the timeliness of the adjudicatory hearing, noting the hearing commenced within the sixty-day period required by both the statute and rule following the district court’s grant of the mother's stipulated motion to continue. The court determined that substantial evidence supported the district court's findings of abuse and neglect, highlighting the combined effect of the mother's conduct, including testing positive for methamphetamine, erratic behavior, and failure to comply with medical and CYFD requirements. Lastly, the court found no abuse of discretion in the district court's admission of evidence regarding the mother's drug tests, noting the district court clarified it relied on testimony related to the drug tests to establish the child's course of treatment and CYFD's involvement, not for the substantive truth of the mother's drug use (paras 4-18).