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

• Two children, S.M., two months old, and K.M., nearly three years old, were adjudicated as abused and came into custody. The father appealed the adjudication, challenging the sufficiency of evidence regarding who injured Savannah, his efforts to seek medical treatment for her, and the district court's finding of a "delay of treatment."

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Appellant (Father): Argued that others may have injured Savannah, that he sought medical treatment for her, and challenged the district court's finding of a "delay of treatment." In his memorandum in opposition, he also contested the district court's finding of aggravated circumstances, asserting that the evidence did not establish him as the perpetrator of the serious abuse (paras 1-2, 3).
• Appellee (State of New Mexico ex rel. Children, Youth & Families Department): [Not applicable or not found]

Legal Issues

• Whether the district court's finding of aggravated circumstances was supported by clear and convincing evidence.
• Whether the father was the perpetrator of the serious abuse suffered by S.M.

Disposition

• The motion to amend the docketing statement to address the finding of aggravated circumstances was denied.
• The dispositional order entered by the district court was affirmed.

Reasons

• The Court, consisting of Judges Julie J. Vargas, Megan P. Duffy, and Zachary A. Ives, unanimously affirmed the district court's decision. The Court found that the father's docketing statement failed to summarize any evidence relevant to his arguments, which was necessary for the appeal. Despite the father's memorandum in opposition raising new arguments regarding the sufficiency of evidence for the finding of aggravated circumstances, the Court denied the motion to amend the docketing statement to include these arguments because they were not viable issues for appeal. The Court concluded that based on the evidence presented at trial, including expert testimony on S.M.'s injuries and the severity and duration of the abuse, the district court could properly determine that the father subjected or conspired to subject S.M. to chronic abuse. The Court also noted that the father did not challenge the finding of futility, which has the same legal and practical effect as a finding of aggravated circumstances, further supporting the decision to affirm the district court's order (paras 1-9).