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 Melissa B. (Mother) with respect to her child, King B. (Child). The termination was sought by the State of New Mexico, ex rel. Children, Youth & Families Department (CYFD). A significant development occurred after the termination hearing concluded, where the foster parents decided not to pursue adoption of the Child.

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Petitioner-Appellee (CYFD): Argued for the termination of Mother's parental rights based on abuse and/or neglect of the Child and the unlikelihood of a change in conditions or causes of neglect and abuse in the foreseeable future despite reasonable efforts by the Department.
• Respondent-Appellant (Mother): Sought to advance arguments related to the foster parents' decision not to pursue adoption, which developed after the termination hearing. Mother acknowledged that these arguments were not preserved at trial but suggested an inability to do so and sought to raise them under the doctrine of fundamental error.

Legal Issues

• Whether the district court erred in not reconvening the termination of parental rights hearing upon learning of the foster parents’ disinterest in adopting.
• Whether Mother was denied due process due to lack of notice and opportunity to present a defense regarding the foster parents' change of decision.
• Whether Mother's attorney's failure to take further action constituted ineffective assistance of counsel.

Disposition

• The motion to amend the docketing statement was denied.
• The judgment of the district court terminating Mother's parental rights was affirmed.

Reasons

• The Court, consisting of Judges Linda M. Vanzi, Julie J. Vargas, and Jennifer L. Attrep, provided several reasons for their decision:
  The Court found that the issues originally raised in the docketing statement but not addressed in the memorandum in opposition were deemed abandoned (para 2).
  The Court denied the motion to amend the docketing statement, concluding that Mother failed to show good cause as required by Rule 12-208(F) NMRA, particularly because the arguments she sought to raise were not preserved at trial (paras 3-4).
  The Court considered Mother's arguments under the doctrine of fundamental error but was unpersuaded. It held that there was no authority or exceptional circumstances requiring the district court to reconvene the termination hearing upon the foster parents' change of heart (paras 6-7).
  The Court found that Mother was not denied due process. She had notice of the statutory basis for termination and an opportunity to present a defense. The Court also determined that the foster parents' decision not to adopt did not necessitate further proceedings (paras 8-10).
  Regarding the claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, the Court concluded that Mother failed to make a prima facie showing of such, especially given her own actions and the substantial evidence supporting the termination of her parental rights (para 11).