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 Raquel M. (Mother) to her child, Angel N., now known as Cisco N. (Child). The district court terminated Mother's parental rights based on aggravated circumstances, specifically, the prior termination of Mother's parental rights to Child's sibling. The Department of Children, Youth, and Families (the Department) filed an abuse and neglect petition after law enforcement found Child in a neglectful environment, exposed to methamphetamine. Mother was incarcerated at the time of the petition filing. The district court found aggravated circumstances due to the prior termination of Mother's parental rights to another child and relieved the Department of its obligation to make further reasonable efforts to reunify the family (paras 4-6, 8-9).

Procedural History

• District Court, December 16, 2010: Parental rights of Mother to a sibling of Child were terminated.
• Court of Appeals of New Mexico, March 26, 2013: Affirmed the district court's judgment terminating Mother's parental rights to Child based on aggravated circumstances.

Parties' Submissions

• Appellee (Children, Youth & Families Department): Argued that the district court correctly found aggravated circumstances due to the prior termination of Mother's parental rights to Child's sibling, relieving the Department of its obligation to make further reasonable efforts to reunify the family (para 16).
• Appellant (Raquel M., Mother): Contended that her due process rights were violated by the aggravated circumstances finding because the prior termination was under appeal, arguing that the Legislature did not intend for termination of parental rights based on aggravated circumstances when the prior termination judgment is pending on appeal (para 15).

Legal Issues

• Whether the district court's finding of aggravated circumstances, based on a prior termination of parental rights that was under appeal, violated Mother's due process rights.
• Whether the Legislature intended to authorize termination of parental rights based on aggravated circumstances when the prior termination of parental rights judgment is pending on appeal.

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's judgment terminating Mother's parental rights to Child.

Reasons

• Per Jonathan B. Sutin, Judge (Roderick T. Kennedy, Chief Judge, concurring; Timothy L. Garcia, Judge, dissenting):
  The court concluded that Mother's due process rights were not violated by the aggravated circumstances finding, even though the foundational judgment supporting that finding could be reversed on appeal. The statutory procedures provided adequate protection against the risk of an erroneous deprivation of parental rights (paras 16, 22-25).
  The court rejected Mother's legislative intent argument, finding no basis in the statute for delaying an aggravated circumstances determination pending the outcome of an appeal of a prior termination. The primary consideration of the Children's Code is the best interest of the child, which is served by timely and permanent placement (paras 28-31).
  The dissenting opinion argued that the Legislature did not intend for aggravated circumstances under Section 32A-4-2(C)(4) to be applied in proceedings where the termination of parental rights over a sibling remained unresolved on appeal, suggesting that Mother was entitled to assistance from the Department to attempt reunification (Dissenting Opinion, paras 39-46).