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 Edward W. (Father) to his children, Mikele W. and Elycia W., following allegations of neglect and abuse. The Children, Youth, and Families Department (the Department) took custody of the children after receiving a referral alleging physical and emotional abuse. The Department's affidavit highlighted the children's exposure to risk due to Father's refusal of services, substance abuse denial, homelessness, criminal history, and lack of parental support. Father did not contest the neglect allegations and refused to comply with the stipulated treatment plan designed to address these issues (paras 3-5).

Procedural History

• District Court, July 2015: Father did not contest the neglect allegations and was subjected to a treatment plan (para 4).
• District Court, March 7, 2016: Found the Department made reasonable efforts, but Father showed minimal compliance; adopted a permanency plan of adoption (para 6).
• District Court, February 2017: Moved to terminate Father's parental rights (para 6).
• District Court, July 5, 2017: Conducted the TPR trial, initially terminating Father's rights (para 6-12).
• Court of Appeals, April 3, 2018: Reversed the initial TPR judgment and remanded for reconsideration (para 12).
• District Court on remand: Issued a second TPR order terminating Father's parental rights (para 13).

Parties' Submissions

• Petitioner-Appellee (the Department): Argued that Father failed to adjust the causes and conditions rendering him unable to care for the children despite the Department's reasonable efforts, including a comprehensive treatment plan and referrals to services (paras 5, 9, 19).
• Respondent-Appellant (Father): Contended that the evidence was not clear and convincing that the Department made reasonable efforts to assist him in addressing the causes of the children's neglect, particularly his drug dependence and mental health issues (para 15).

Legal Issues

• Whether the Department made reasonable efforts to assist Father in adjusting the conditions that rendered him unable to properly care for the children, as required for the termination of parental rights under NMSA 1978, Section 32A-4-28(B)(2) (para 14).

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's decision to terminate Father's parental rights (para 22).

Reasons

• The Court of Appeals, per Judge Linda M. Vanzi, with Judges J. Miles Hanisee and Jacqueline R. Medina concurring, found substantial evidence supporting the district court's decision. The court highlighted Father's consistent failure to engage with the treatment plan, lack of communication and support for the children, and ongoing substance abuse issues. Despite the Department's efforts, including referrals to counseling and clear instructions on the steps needed for reunification, Father did not demonstrate a willingness or ability to address the issues leading to the children's neglect and abuse. The court concluded that the Department's efforts were reasonable given Father's minimal cooperation and the totality of the circumstances (paras 16-21).