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 Children, Youth & Families Department (CYFD) of New Mexico's allegations against Stephen F. (Father) regarding his minor children, Briseis F. and Vaeleigh F. CYFD alleged that the children were neglected and abandoned by their father. The timeline of events leading to CYFD's petition includes an emergency report about the children's injuries, interviews with the children revealing no abuse or neglect, the children running away, their subsequent custody by CYFD, and the filing of the petition against the father, all occurring within a span of seven days.

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Petitioner-Appellee (CYFD): Argued that the children were neglected and abandoned by Father under NMSA 1978, Section 32A-4-2(G)(1), citing Father's failure to pick up the children or arrange for their pickup by a responsible individual as evidence of abandonment.
• Respondent-Appellant (Father): Contended that the district court lacked jurisdiction over the matter and argued that CYFD failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence that he abandoned the children.

Legal Issues

• Whether the district court had jurisdiction over the matter.
• Whether CYFD proved by clear and convincing evidence that the children were abandoned by Father under NMSA 1978, Section 32A-4-2(G)(1).

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals reversed the district court’s adjudication under Section 32A-4-2(G)(1) and did not render a conclusion on the jurisdictional issue raised by Father.

Reasons

• J. Miles Hanisee, Judge (Jane B. Yohalem, Judge, and Michael D. Bustamante, Judge, concurring): The Court found that the adjudicatory judgment was not supported by clear and convincing evidence of abandonment as required under Section 32A-4-2(G)(1). The timeline of events did not satisfy the statutory requirements for abandonment, specifically the requisite period of time for such a determination. The Court also noted that even if the broad definition of abandonment argued by CYFD were accepted, the evidence did not demonstrate that the parent-child relationship was destroyed, a necessary component for a finding of abandonment. The Court addressed the potential mootness of the appeal due to the district court's dismissal order following reunification of the children with their mother but concluded that the appeal was not moot because the underlying neglect adjudication could negatively affect Father's future. The Court did not resolve the jurisdictional issue raised by Father, focusing instead on the lack of clear and convincing evidence for the neglect and abandonment adjudication. The decision directed the district court to vacate the adjudicatory judgment, highlighting the insufficiency of the evidence presented by CYFD and the procedural inappropriateness of pursuing a neglect by abandonment action under the circumstances described (paras 1-11).