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 an appeal by a mother against an adjudication of abuse and neglect concerning her child, Alexis K. The appeal challenges the sufficiency of the evidence and asserts evidentiary error regarding testimony from two witnesses.

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Petitioner-Appellee (Children, Youth & Families Department): The arguments or evidence presented by the Department are not detailed in the provided text.
• Respondent-Appellant (Mother): Argued that the evidence of abuse presented at trial was vague and lacked reliability (para 2). She also contended that certain testimony was inadmissible due to it being hearsay and not meeting the requirements of Rule 10-335 NMRA (paras 3-5).

Legal Issues

• Whether the evidence presented at trial was sufficient to support the district court's finding of abuse.
• Whether the testimony objected to by the mother was admissible under the rules of evidence and procedural rules governing discovery.

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals affirmed the order of the district court, rejecting the mother's challenges to the sufficiency and admissibility of the evidence (para 6).

Reasons

• The decision was authored by Chief Judge J. Miles Hanisee, with Judges Kristina Bogardus and Megan P. Duffy concurring. The court held that:
  The appellate court must resolve conflicts in evidence in favor of the order entered by the district court and affirm if the findings are supported by clear and convincing evidence. The court found that the evidence, if accepted by the finder of fact, supported the order of abuse (para 2).
  Rule 10-335 NMRA, which deals with diagnostic examinations or evaluation reports, does not govern the admissibility of evidence at an adjudicatory hearing, and the evidence at issue consisted of testimony, not documents (para 3).
  The objected testimony did not involve expert opinion but rather facts testified to by two witnesses. Thus, neither the rules of evidence governing expert testimony nor procedural rules governing discovery precluded the factual testimony at issue in this appeal (para 4).
  The court concluded that the testimony had sufficient indicia of reliability to be admissible, dismissing the mother's assertion that it contained inadmissible hearsay (para 5).
  The mother's memorandum in opposition did not provide new facts or authorities that could persuade the court that the proposed summary disposition was in error. The burden was on the mother to clearly point out errors in fact or law, which she failed to do (para 6).