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 the Father against the district court's adjudicatory order and its denial of Father's motion for reconsideration and for a new trial. The Father's appeal centered on new and substantial evidence related to the Child's lack of credibility as a witness, attributed to Reactive Attachment Disorder (RAD).

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Petitioner-Appellee (State of New Mexico ex rel. Children, Youth & Families Department): The specific arguments made by the Petitioner-Appellee are not detailed in the provided text.
• Respondent-Appellant (Father): Argued that the district court erred by denying Father’s motion for a new trial based on new and substantial evidence demonstrating the Child’s lack of credibility as a witness due to RAD (paras 2).

Legal Issues

• Whether the district court erred by denying Father’s motion for a new trial based on new and substantial evidence related to the Child's lack of credibility as a witness due to RAD.
• Whether Father was entitled to a full evidentiary hearing based on the new evidence presented.
• Whether the case should be reassigned to the general calendar for a review of the complete record and to fully address the due process concerns presented.

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court’s adjudicatory order as well as its order denying Father’s motion to reconsider and for a new trial (para 4).

Reasons

• JACQUELINE R. MEDINA, Judge, with MEGAN P. DUFFY, Judge, and JANE B. YOHALEM, Judge, concurring: The Court found that the Father did not demonstrate that the prerequisites for granting a new trial were met, nor did he show that an expert was willing to testify about the Child’s diagnosis of RAD. The Court also noted that Father’s memorandum in opposition provided insufficient evidence to demonstrate that the district court erred by denying Father’s motion. Furthermore, the Court addressed Father's request for reassignment to the general calendar for a review of the complete record and due process concerns, concluding that Father had not sufficiently explained why review of the Child’s testimony was necessary, especially considering the district court had already taken into account the Child's dishonesty at times. The Court emphasized that it would not reweigh evidence nor substitute its judgment for that of the fact-finder, leading to the affirmation of the district court's decisions (paras 2-4).