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

• A seven-month-old child, suffering from multiple severe medical conditions, was taken into custody by the New Mexico Children, Youth and Families Department (CYFD) after allegations of starvation and neglect by the mother. The mother had removed the child's feeding tube against medical advice and had failed to allow medical professionals into her home or bring the child in for necessary weekly check-ups. The child was placed with foster parents, Joel and Kim Weber, while the mother was granted visitation rights at the discretion of CYFD (paras 2-4).

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Petitioner-Appellee (CYFD): Argued that the mother failed to comply with the critical aspects of her treatment plan, particularly attending 95% of the child's medical appointments and engaging with the child's developmental therapies. CYFD also highlighted the mother's refusal to engage in recommended psychotherapy following a diagnosis of chronic anxiety and an adjustment disorder (paras 6-7, 12).
• Respondent-Appellant (Mother): Testified acknowledging the removal of the child's feeding tube was a mistake and admitted to non-compliance with the treatment plan initially. The mother also mentioned changes in her employment to be more available for the child and contested her ability to attend medical appointments due to work or financial constraints (para 14).
• Intervenors (Joel and Kim Weber): Testified about the child's medical progress and care requirements since being placed in their home. They expressed a desire to adopt the child, citing concerns about the mother's understanding of the child's needs and safety in the mother's home (para 11).

Legal Issues

• Whether the mother's parental rights to her child should be terminated based on her failure to comply with the treatment plan and inability to meet the child's medical needs.

Disposition

• The district court's judgment terminating the mother's parental rights to the child pursuant to Section 32A-4-28(B)(2) was affirmed (para 26).

Reasons

• The Court, with Judges Jennifer L. Attrep, Linda M. Vanzi, and Megan P. Duffy concurring, found substantial evidence supporting the termination of parental rights. The decision emphasized the mother's lack of participation in the child's healthcare and medical appointments, failure to engage in psychotherapy, and inability to meet the child's specialized needs. The Court rejected the mother's arguments that the district court erred by relying on her failure to comply with the treatment plan and incorrectly shifted the burden of proof. The evidence presented was not considered stale and was relevant to the months leading up to the termination of parental rights (TPR) hearing. The Court concluded that the conditions and causes of neglect were unlikely to change in the foreseeable future, affirming the district court's judgment (paras 17-25).