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 appeal by Vance G. (Father) against the district court's judgment terminating his parental rights to five of his children. The appeal challenges the sufficiency of evidence regarding the New Mexico Children, Youth, and Families Department's (the Department) efforts to prevent the breakup of the Indian family, as required by the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA), and the qualification of a Department witness as a "qualified expert witness" under ICWA.

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Petitioner-Appellee (The Department): Argued that they made active efforts to provide remedial services and rehabilitative programs to the Father and that the testimony of their witness met the ICWA requirement for a "qualified expert witness."
• Respondent-Appellant (Father): Contended that the evidence was insufficient to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the Department made active efforts as required by ICWA and that the district court erred in accepting the Department's witness as a "qualified expert witness."
• Intervenor (Jicarilla Apache Nation): Consented to the testimony of the Department's witness in the role of a "qualified expert witness."

Legal Issues

• Whether the Department made "active efforts" to provide remedial services and rehabilitative programs designed to prevent the breakup of the Indian family, as required by ICWA.
• Whether the district court erred in concluding that the testimony of a Department witness satisfied ICWA’s requirement for testimony given by a "qualified expert witness."

Disposition

• The appeal was affirmed, upholding the district court's judgment terminating the Father's parental rights.

Reasons

• The Court, comprising Judges Zachary A. Ives, Megan P. Duffy, and Gerald E. Baca, concluded that:
  Regarding active efforts: The evidence presented at the termination hearing, including attempts by the Department to contact the Father and provide him with services, was sufficient to support the district court's decision that the Department made active efforts as required by ICWA (paras 2-5).
  Regarding the qualified expert witness: The Father's argument that the district court erred in accepting the Department's witness as a "qualified expert witness" was inadequately developed for appellate review. The Court noted that the witness, an enrolled member of the Navajo Nation and employed as an ICWA specialist by the Jicarilla Apache Nation, was accepted as a qualified expert witness with the consent of the Jicarilla Apache Nation. The Court found no reason to doubt the witness's qualifications based on her familiarity with the culture and customs of the Jicarilla Apache Nation or her employment duration with the Nation (paras 6-9).