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 adjudication of four children (referred to as Children) as abused and neglected by their father, Dominic S. The Children, Youth & Families Department (CYFD) of New Mexico initiated proceedings against Dominic S., leading to a district court order that adjudicated the children as abused and neglected.

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Petitioner-Appellee (CYFD): Argued that the children were abused and neglected, leading to the initiation of proceedings against Dominic S.
• Respondent-Appellant (Dominic S.): Contested the adjudication of abuse and neglect, arguing that the district court erred in allowing testimony regarding the children's safe house interviews into evidence, claiming such evidence was inadmissible hearsay.

Legal Issues

• Whether the district court erred in allowing testimony regarding children's safe house interviews into evidence as claimed by Dominic S.
• Whether Dominic S.'s right to due process was denied due to lack of access to the children's safe house interviews and his alleged inability to confront and cross-examine the children.

Disposition

• The motion to amend the docketing statement by Dominic S. was denied.
• The district court's abuse and neglect adjudication was affirmed.

Reasons

• The Court of Appeals, consisting of Judges Kristina Bogardus, Zachary A. Ives, and Jane B. Yohalem, concluded that the father's arguments were not persuasive enough to overturn the district court's decision. The court found that the father's claim regarding the inadmissibility of hearsay evidence was unfounded because the testimony did not contain actual statements made by the children during the safe house interviews, thus not qualifying as hearsay under Rule 11-801(C) NMRA (paras 2-4). Furthermore, the court presumed that the district judge disregarded any improperly admitted evidence, given the bench trial setting, and noted that the children's in-court testimony provided ample evidence for the adjudications (para 5). The court also rejected the father's due process claims, noting that he had not demonstrated how his defense was impaired by lack of access to the safe house interviews and that both children who testified were subject to cross-examination by the father's attorney (paras 7-8).