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

• Law enforcement discovered children living in deplorable conditions in a residence with seventeen other children. The New Mexico Children, Youth, and Families Department (CYFD) filed a petition alleging abuse and/or neglect by the mother of the children, but the father was not initially included as a party. The father was later added as a party after being arrested and incarcerated on charges including criminal sexual penetration and contact of a minor. He remained incarcerated throughout the termination proceedings. The district court held permanency hearings, which the father did not receive notice of, and approved an adoption permanency plan for the children. CYFD then filed a motion to terminate both parents' rights, alleging abandonment among other things. The father's attorney received notice of the termination hearing and filed a motion to dismiss the abuse or neglect petition on grounds that the father was not properly adjudicated as to the abuse and neglect allegations (paras 2-5).

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Father: Argued that the judgment should be set aside due to a due process violation for not being given notice or an opportunity to participate in the permanency hearings. Asserted that had he been a party to the case and allowed to participate in the permanency plans, the outcome would have been different (paras 1, 8).
• CYFD (Petitioner-Appellee): Moved to terminate the father's parental rights on the grounds of abandonment, asserting that the father had not come forward to claim responsibility for the children, had no contact with them, nor provided any financial assistance or other forms of support (para 4).

Legal Issues

• Whether the father's due process rights were violated by not being given notice or an opportunity to participate in the permanency hearings related to the abuse and neglect proceedings that preceded the termination of parental rights hearing (para 1).
• Whether the father's absence from the permanency hearings could have reasonably altered the court’s findings of abandonment, which served as the basis for the termination of parental rights (para 1).

Disposition

• The court affirmed the district court’s termination of the father's parental rights premised upon abandonment (para 13).

Reasons

• The court, led by Judge J. Miles Hanisee with concurrence from Judges Cynthia A. Fry and Michael E. Vigil, found that the father's participation in the hearings regarding abuse and neglect could not have reasonably altered the court’s unchallenged findings of abandonment. The court determined that the father did not suffer a due process violation. It was noted that abuse or neglect and abandonment are separate and independent grounds for the termination of parental rights, with distinct statutory requirements. The court concluded that the father's absence from the permanency hearings did not demonstrate a violation of his due process rights because he failed to show that the outcome of the termination might have been different had he been present at those hearings (paras 6-12).