1 IN TH E SUPREME COURT O F THE ST ATE OF NEW MEXICO

2 Opinion N um ber: 3 F ili ng D at e: Ju ne 18, 201 8 4 N O. S -1 -S C -3 6028 5 IN TH E MATTE R OF 6 AN HAY LA H., a child, 7 ST A TE OF N EWM EX IC O e x r el . 8 CHILD REN , Y OUT H A ND FA MILIES 9 DEP AR TME NT, 10 Petitioner-Pe tition er, 11 v. 12 KEO N H., 13 Re spon de nt- Re spon de nt. 14 ORI GI NAL PROCEEDI NG ON CERTI ORARI 15 Wi lli am E. P ar na ll, D ist ri ctJu dg e
16 N ewMe xic o C hil dr en , Y outh & F am ili es D ep ar tm en t 17 Ke lly P. O’ Ne ill, Children’ s Court Attorney 18 Alb uq ue rq ue , NM 19 for Pe tition er
20 Law O ffice s of Jane B. Yohalem 21 Jane B. Yohalem 22 San ta Fe, NM1 fo r Re spon de nt1 OPIN ION

2 MA ES, Justice. 3 { 1} T he N ew Me xic o C hil dr en , Y outh and F am ili es D ep ar tm en t ( the D ep ar

tm en t) 4 ap p ea l s fr o m

a j u d g me n t o f t h e C o u rt o f A p p ea l s re v er s i n g t h e d i s t ri ct co u rt ’s 5 te rm ina tio n of

F athe r’ s pare nta l r igh ts w ithr eg ar d to Ch ild
. T he Co urt of Appe al s 6 co nc lud e d t h a t t h e D e p a rt m e n t f a i l e d t o m a k e r e a s o n ab l e e f f o rt s t o a s s i s t F a t h e r in 7 re m edy ing the co ndi tio ns and ca use s of neg le ct an d a

buse that r en de re d F athe r una ble 8 to pro pe rly care fo r Ch il d un de r NMSA 1 97 8, Se ct io n 3 2A- 4- 28 (B)( 2) (20 05 ). See 9 St at e ex r el . Chi ld

re n, Y ou th & Fami li es Dep’ t v. Ke on H. , 201 7- N MC A -0 04, ¶ 1, 1 0 3 8 7 P. 3 d3 1 3 . We g ra n t e d c er t i o ra ri t o re v i ew wh et h ert h e d i s t ri ct co u rt ’s 11 determ ination that the Depar tm ent m ade re asonable efforts to as sist Father w as 12 supp orte d by

sub stanti al e vid en ce . W e re vers e th e Co urt of Appe al s op ini on and 13 af fi rm the dis tr ic t c ourt or de r te rm ina tin g F athe r’ s pare nta l r igh ts. 14 I. BACKGRO UND 15 { 2} O n F eb ru ar

y 20, 201 3, Mo the r an d F athe r too k t wo- m on th -o ld C hil d to the 16 hosp ita l. Mothe r an d Fathe r re porte d tha t tw o da y s pr ior Fathe r ha d b een st an din g 1 7 an d r o c k i n g C h i l d w h e n h e a c c i d e n t a l l y d r o p p e d h e r o n t h e c a r p e t . C h i l d w as in 18 cr iti ca l c ondi tio n, ha vin g su sta ine d m ult ipl e fr actur es , inc lud ing tw en ty -thr ee r ib 19 frac tures and four skull frac t u res in various stages of healing, facia l bruisin g, liver2

1 lacer ations, brain bleeding, and a p ossib le d etached retina. Doctors deter m ined that 2 the “ vol um e, dis tr ibu tio n, a nd s ev er ity of [C hil d’ s] inj ur ie s [w er e] not c onsi ste nt w ith 3 a short fall in the hom e” and instead evidenced m ul t i p l e i ncidents of blu nt force 4 traum a to Child’ s head and bod y . Child is severely phy sically

and m entally

im paired 5 as ar es ult

of the inj ur ie s. 6 { 3} On Fe bruary

25, 2013, the De partm ent filed a petit i on with the district court 7 alleging Child t o be neglected and/or abused und er N MSA1978 , S ection 32A-4-2 8 (2 009, a m en de d 2017 ). Mothe r an d Fathe r en te re d no co nte st ple as to the ne gle ct a nd 9 abuse allegations o n April 5, 2013
. The a djudicatory and dispo sition al h earing w as 10 he l d onApr i l 2 2, 2 01 3. A n i ni t i a l j ud i c i a l r e vi e wh e a r i ng a nd t hr e e p e rm anency 11 he ar ing s we re he ld betw ee n M ay 20, 201 3 and Augus t 22 , 201 4. F athe r’ s te rm ina tio n 12 of pare nta l r igh ts h eari ng w as c ondu ct ed ove r tw o day s, appr oxi m at el y six m onths 13 ap ar t, A ugus t 27 , 201 4 and F eb ru ar y 6, 201 5. P er

tin en t detai ls of

the vari ous 14 he ari ng s ar e o ut li ne d b el ow. 15 A. Initial Cust ody 16 { 4} T he D ep ar

tm en t took Chi ld into cu sto dy on Fe br ua ry 21, 201 3 ona lle ga tio ns 17 of neglect and/or abuse filed February 25, 2013. O n February

26, 2013, the district 18 co ur t g ran te d t he Depa rtment c o n t in ue d c us to dy of Ch il d u nt il fur th er o rd er. On3

1 Marc h 7, 201 3, ac ust ody heari ng w as he ld; both M oth er a nd F athe r w er e pr es en t. 2 A t the c ust ody

he ar ing , the c ourt or de re d M oth er a nd F athe r to p ar

tic ipa te in 3 psy ch osoc ia l, psy ch olo gic al , dom es tic vio le nc e, su bstan ce abuse , a nd p ar en tin g 4 assessm ents, as w ell as drug screens. Mother was also instructed to participate in an 5 independ ent livin g skill s assessm ent. The c ourt further instructed Mother and Father 6 t o k ee p t h ei r a t t o rn eys an dt h e D ep ar t m en t ’s p er ma n e n c y p l an n i n g wo rk er(P PW) 7 ap pr ise d of th ei r curr en t a ddr es se s and p hone num be rs a t a ll tim es a nd p ro m ptl y 8 not if y the m of a ny c ha nge s. T he D ep ar

tm en t a ssi gne d R ic hard

G ac ze w ski a s th e 9 PPW for Child and Diane Dr obin ski as the PPW for Mother and Father. 10 B. Med iation and P lea 11 { 5} On April 5, 2013, Mother and Father participated in a m ediation conference 12 and pled no contest to Child being neglected and/o r abused under Sec tion 3 2A-4-2 13 (2 009, a m en de d 20 17)
. T he f ac tua l ba sis fo r Mothe r’ s an d Fathe r’ s ple a ag re em en ts 14 w as tha t Chi ld w as se ri ousl y inj ur ed w hil e in the care of Mo the r, F athe r, a nd o the rs , 15 and “ no action was taken by [Mother or F ather] to protect [Child] from injury or seek 16 m edical car e. ” M o t h er’ s stipu lated j udgm ent and disp ositio n also not ed that 17 “ dom es tic vio le nc e in the hom e be tw ee n [ Fathe r] a nd [ Mothe r] in the pr es en ce of 18 [C hil d] [ ha d] im

pa ir ed [ Mothe r’ s] abil ity

to pr ovi de f

or the c ar e, sa fe ty

a nd13 T he dis tr ic t c ourt’ s or de rs in the c as e re fe r to the D ep ar tm ent’ s pl an s f

or 1 14 Mothe r an d Fathe r as “ ca se ” plans i nst ea d of “ tr ea tm en t” plans. T he te rm s a ppe ar to 15 be used interchangeably by both th e cou rt and the parties. For cons istency , w e re fer 16 to the plans as “ tr ea tm en t” plans thr ough out thi s op ini on. W e do note, however , that 17 when the L egislature am ended the disp ositio n statute in 2016 , it subs tituted th e w ord 18 “ cas e” fo r “ tre at m en t” th ro ug ho ut . See NMS A 1978, § 32A-4-22(C) (2016). 19 Fathe r’ s nam e w as not or igi na lly lis te d in the pa re nt/ guard ian pl anit em s of the 2 20 sum m ar y tr ea tm en t plan; the sum

m ar y onl y ind ic at ed tha t a psy ch osoc ia l a sse ssm en t 21 w as due
. T his ty

pogr ap hic al e rr or

w as dis cu sse d onF eb ru ar y 24, 201 4 a t the se co nd 22 pe rm an en cy

he ar in g. T he part ie s a cknow le dge d th at thi s w as sim

ply a n ov er sig ht. 4 1 su pe rv is io n o f [Ch il d].” 2 C . A dj ud ic at ion an d D isp osi ti on 3 { 6} At

t he a dj ud i c a t or

y a nd d i sp os i t i on a l h e a r i ng o n Apr i l 2 2, 2 01 3, t he d i str i ct 4 co urt a dopt ed

the D ep ar

tm en t’s prof

fe re d f ind ing s of

f ac t and i nc or

por at ed int o it s 5 or de r the D ep ar

tm en t’ s f am ily tr ea tm en t plan an d pr ed isp osi tio na l st udy da te d Apr il 1 6 16, 201 3. A lth oughthe c ourt h ad or de re d se ve ra l a sse ssm en ts, the tr ea tm en t pl an s 7 recom m ended by

the D e pa r tm e nt f or M other and Father c alled for initial psy chosocial 8 as se ssm en ts o n w hic h othe r D ep ar tm en t re co m

m en da tio ns wo uld

be ba se d. B y

the 9 he ar ing da te , Mothe r ha d co m ple te d he r psy ch osoc ia l as se ssm en t and the D ep ar tm en t 10 had developed personalized treatm ent recom m endations for her
. Father had not y et 11 pa rt ic ipa te d inhis psy ch osoc ia l a sse ssm en t and thus onl y ha d th e one it em in his 12 tr ea tm en t pl an . 217 Father’ s nam e is listed in the fam ily treatm ent plan, and there is noth ing in the rec ord

18 to i ndi ca te tha t the re w as a ny c onf usi on a bout F athe r’ s r es pons ibi lity

to pa rt ic ipa te 19 in a psy ch osoc ia l a sse ssm en t. 5 1 { 7} T he r ec or d in dic at es tha t a t the ti m e of the he ar ing , F athe r w as hom el es s and 2 did not ha ve a n a ddr es s. F athe r w as not ret ur ni ng phone c al ls f

ro m his P PW , Ms
. 3 Dro bi ns ki , nor d id h e showf or asc he dul ed

of fi ce vis it. F athe r’ s on ly

vis its w ith 4 Ch ild oc curr ed pr ior to the ad

j udi ca tor y he ar ing
. T he D ep ar

tm en t de sc ri be d on e vis it 5 as “ problem atic” beca

use Father had “ angrily grabbed [Mother’ s] cell phone from her 6 ha nds” w he n they w er e hav ing an ar gum en t. T he dis tr ic t cour t orde re d M oth er

a nd 7 Fathe r to “unde rg o ps y ch olo gic al e va lua tio ns and tre atm en t t o be a rr an ge d by the 8 [D epartm ent] or consist ent with [the c] ourt’ s order. ” T he court also ordered Mother 9 an d F athe r to m ai nta in re gul ar co nta ct w ith the ir at tor ne y s an d th e PP W

r eg ar din g th e 10 co urt- or de re d tr ea tm en t pl an s, c ourt da te s, a nd the c as e in g en er al
. 11 D. Initial Judicial Review Hearing 12 { 8} The initial j udici al re view hear ing was held on May 20, 2013. Mother w as 13 pr es en t by

pho ne ; F athe r w as not pr es en t. T he dis tr ic t c ourt a dopt ed the 14 De partm ent’ s facts and proposed fam i l y t reatm ent plan contained in the j udicial 15 re vie w a nd/ or

pe rm an en cy

he ar ing r ep ort da te d M ay 20, 201 3. T he D ep ar

tm en t 16 sta te d inthe r ep ort tha t it off er ed Mothe r an d Fa the r of fi ce vis its w ith the ir PP W to6

1 conduct ps y chosocial assessm ents, cr eate tr eatm ent plans, and coordinate supervised 2 visits with Child. T he court found that Mot her w as participating in her treatm ent plan 3 an d r eg ularl y

vis iti ng C hil d. Fat he r, how ev er , ha d m ad e no e ff orts t o c om

ply w ith 4 his tr ea tm en t pl an , ha d m ad e no effo rts t o m ai nta in c ont ac t w ithCh ild giv enhis 5 circum stances and his abili ties, and had not been in contact with the Depar tm ent since 6 the ple a he ar ing on Apr il 5, 201 3. B ec au se F athe r w as not pr es en t a t the he ar ing , the 7 court asked Father’ s attorney if Father had been in contact with her. Father ’ s attorney 8 st at ed t h at s h e called Father the day before and asked if Father had been in contact 9 with the De partm ent. She said that Father told her that he had not b ee n i n co n t act 10 with the D epartm ent, that he had not starte d to e ngage in his treatm ent plan, and that 11 the onl y

thi ng h e w as doi ng w as loo kin g f or aj ob. 12 E. Initial Per m anency He aring 13 { 9} The initial perm anency hearing wa s held on Novem ber 25, 2013
. Mother w as 14 present; Father w as also present, hav i n g b een transp orted from the Metropolitan 15 D et en tio n C en te r (M D C)
. T he dis tr ic t c ourt a dopt ed the D ep ar

tm en t’ s f ac ts and 16 propos ed fam ily

treatm ent plan contained in the j udicial review and/or perm anency 17 hearing report dated Novem ber 25, 2013
. The De partm ent inform ed the co u rt that 18 Fathe r w as in cu sto dy due to a dom es tic vio le nc e inc ide nt w ithMo the r. T he7

1 De partm ent also inform ed the court that Mother h ad been m aking go od efforts at 2 working her treatm ent plan but had rece ntly stopp ed participating and th at Father had 3 m ade no efforts to participate in his treatm ent plan. Fa ther’ s attorney told th e court 4 tha t F athe r int en de d to ta ke his dom es tic vio le nc e ch arg e to tr ia l, so s he did not 5 ex pe ct tha t c as e to b e re sol ve d pr ior to the ne gle ct

a nd a buse pr oc ee din gs. 6 { 10} During the h ea ri n g , F ather’ s attorney volun teere d that Father had not been 7 good about ke ep ing in tou chw ithhe r. In re spon se , the c ourt e xpl ai ne d to Mo the r an d 8 Fathe r the im

portanc e of m ai nta ini ng con ta ct w iththe D ep ar tm en t. T he c ourt sa id, 9 “ Whe n th er e’ s apr obl em , y ou n ee d to go t o th e D ep ar tm en t an d le t the D ep ar

tm en t 10 know
. . . [ if

y ou are ] hom el es s . . . don ’ t have apho ne . . . c an ’ t ge t t o th e [uri ne 11 an al y se s] , . . . wha te ve r. T he D ep ar tm en t’ s j ob i s to m ak e re as ona ble e ff orts t o f ix 12 tho se thi ngs; so I ’ ll as k th e D ep ar tm en t t o do tha t, an d I’ ll as k y ou t o c om m uni ca te 13 with the De partm ent so that [it will] do that.” T he court rem inded Father that there 14 we re program s Father c ould com plete while in custody

and encouraged him

to “ keep 15 that in m ind and do what y ou can.” Father r espond ed, “ Ye s, sir. ” T he court changed 16 Ch ild ’ s pe rm an en cy

planni ng g oa l f

ro m reun if

ic at ionto ad opt ion , but

or de re d th e 17 D ep ar tm en t t o m ak e re as ona

ble e ff orts t o im ple m en t the f

am ily tr ea tm en t pl ana nd 18 or de re d M oth er

a nd F athe r to m ak e re as ona ble e ff orts t o c om

ply w iththe plan.8

1 F. Second Pe rm anency He aring 2 { 11} The second perm anency hearing wa s held on February 24, 2014. Mother w as 3 present; Father w as also present, having been transpo rt ed fr o m MDC
. The district 4 court adopted the De partm ent’ s facts and propos ed fam ily treatm ent plan contained 5 in the judicial re view and/or perm anency hearing report dated Fe bruary 24, 2014. In 6 the re port, Ms
. D ro bin ski inf orm ed the co urt tha t Fathe r ha d tw ic e be ensc he dul ed f or 7 his psy ch osoc ia l ass es sm en t but c an ce le d bo th a ppoi ntm en ts, a nd tha t M oth er ’ s vi sit s 8 with Child had been canceled after Mother’ s dom estic violence incident with Father. 9 Furthe r, Ms
. D ro bin ski ind ic at ed tha t F athe r had no t beenin tou chw iththe 10 De partm ent an d h ad n o t participated in his treatm ent plan, but did n ote that Father 11 had once visit ed with Chi ld. Ms. Drobinski also inform ed the court that she visit ed 12 Fathe r at

MD C i n Nov em

be r 2013 , tha t Fa the r w as tr an sf er re d to T ex as , a nd tha t sh e 13 asked Father’ s attorney how to wr ite to Father. 14 { 12} T he guard ian a d li te m , K ar enCantr el l, w as pr es en t and t es tif ie d that Ch ild 15 would need high ly

skilled and s pecialized care f or her entire life. Ms. Dr obin ski was 16 al so p re se nt and p ro vid ed inf orm at ionabout

Ch ild ’ s ther ap y

ne ed s and the ty

pe of 17 training a care giver would need in order to provid e Child with the twenty -four-hour1 8 a- d ay ca re t h at Ch i l dre qu i re s . M s . Dr o b i n s k i t es t i fi ed t h a t , a t a min i m u m , C h i l d ’s9

1 care giver would need to participate in training with the Association for Retarded 2 Citizens of Albuquerque or another agency of that ty

pe, and participate in Child ’s 3 o c c up a t i o n a l t h e r ap y, p h ys i c a l t h e r ap y, a n dh i p p o t h e r ap y. 4 G. Motion t o Term inate P arental Rights 5 { 13} On Mar ch 26, 2014, the De partm ent fil ed a m otion to term inate the parental 6 ri ght s of both M oth er

a nd F athe r, statin g th at

Mo the r an d F athe r “ ha ve be enuna ble 7 or unw ill ing to m ak e the ne ce ssary c ha nge s to pare nt [ Ch ild ] in a m ini m al ly sa fe a nd 8 ad equa te m an ne r. ” T he D ep ar tm en t al le ge d tha t M oth er ha d st oppe d part ic ipa tin g in 9 he r tr ea tm en t plan it em s and tha t F athe r w as in subs tanti al non -c om pli an ce w ithhis 10 tr ea tm en t pl ana nd ha d ab an done d C hil d. T he D ep ar tm en t a sse rt ed

tha t, de spi te 11 re as ona

ble e ff orts b y the D ep ar

tm en t t o as sis t Mothe r an d F athe r, it w as “ unl ike ly

the 12 unde rl y ing c au se s of

the ne gle ct

[ w oul d] c ha nge in the f or es ee able f

utu re . ” T he 13 D ep ar tm en t a lso a sse rt ed

tha t a ddi tio nal effo rts w oul d be f uti le
. F athe r fi le d a 14 re spon se to the m oti on, de ny ing the al le ga tio ns. Mo the r ult im at el y vol unt ar ily 15 re lin qui she d he r pa re nta l r igh ts. 16 H. Third Pe rm anency He aring 17 { 14} O n A ugus t 22 , 201 4, the dis tr ic t c ourt he ld a thi rd pe rm an en cy

he ar ing
. 18 Mother wa s present; Father was also present, having b een transported from MDC
.10

1 The district court adop ted the De partm ent’ s facts and proposed fam ily treatm ent plan 2 co nta ine d inthe j udi ci al re vie w a nd/ or pe rm an en cy

he ar ing r ep ort da te d A ugus t 22 , 3 2014
. T he co urt fo und tha t the D ep ar tm en t ha d m ad e re as ona

ble e ff orts t o im ple m en t 4 the tr ea tm en t pl an s of Mo th er and F athe r, that M oth er ha d m ad e som e ef

fo rt s to 5 co m ply w ithhe r tr ea tm en t plan but tha t he r pa rt ic ipa tio n ha d be eninc onsi ste nt, a nd 6 t h at Fa ther had m ade no effort to com ply with his treatm ent plan. A gain, the court 7 or de re d M oth er

a nd F athe r to p ar

tic ipa te in the ir

tr ea tm en t pl an s. 8 I. Te rm in at ion of P ar en ta l Righ ts He ar in g—F ir st D ay 9 { 15} T he te rm ina tio n of pare nta l r igh ts h eari ng b eg anon Augus t 27, 2014
. O n th e 10 da y of the he ar ing , Mo the r vol unt ari ly rel inquis he d he r pa re nta l r igh ts t o C hil d. 11 T he re af

te r, the te rm ina tio n pr oc ee din gs pe rt ai ne d so le ly to Fathe r’ s pare nta l r igh ts. 12 The c ourt heard testim ony from three w itnesses: Luanne Stordahl, a fam ily service 13 co or di na to r an d d ev el op m en ta l s pe ci al is t at Ins pi rat io ns Early Int erv e nt io n, In c.; 14 Richard G acze wski, a senior PPW

with the D epartm ent; and Father. 15 1. Luanne Stord ahl’s Testim ony 16 { 16} Ms
. S tor da hl t es tif ie d th at Ch ild did not

ha ve a ny m ed ic al iss ue s a t bi rth; b ut 1 7 w h e n M s . S t o r d a h l e v a l u a t e dC h i l di n M a r c h 2 0 1 3 w h e n C h i l dw a s ap p r o x i m at el y 18 thr ee m onths old , Ch ild “ w as not usi ng the ri ght sid e of he r body ” an d ha d “ dif

fi cu lty11

1 m ai nta ini ng e y e co nta ct or [f ixa tin g] on toy s or obj ec ts. ” Ms
. S tor da hl s pe ci fi ca lly 2 de sc ri be d C hil d’ s vi sua l diag no se s, wh ic h in cl ude d m ult ipl e br ai n and e y e iss ue s. 3 Ch ild w as a sse sse d as ha vin g “ de lay s in he r m oto r ski lls , f ee din g sk ill s, vis ionski lls 4
. . . an d co m

m uni ca tio n ski lls
. ” Su

bse que nt re as se ssm en ts re co nf irm ed tho se de lay s. 5 Ms
. S tor da hl t es tif

ed tha t a s ar es ult , Ch ild

w as r ef er re d to m ult ipl e the ra

pie s, one of 6 tho se be ing hip pothe ra py . Whe n as ke d w ho co uld pa rt ic ipa te in hip pothe ra py w ith 7 Child, Ms. Stordahl testified that both parents would have been able to participate. 8 She stated that Mother h ad attended som e sess ions, but to her knowledge Fa ther had 9 never attended anysessions
. Ms. S tordahl testified that sh e had not had any contact 10 with Father
. 11 2. Rich ard Gacze w sk i’s Testim ony 12 { 17} Mr. Ga czew ski testified that he wa s currently Father’ s PPW

and had been since 13 March 21, 2014
. Mr. Ga cze ws k i testified that he wa s also serving as Child ’ s PPW 14 an d ha d be en Ch ild ’ s PP W sin ce Marc h 2013
. A s C hil d’ s P PW , he w orke d c los el y 1 5 wi t h Ms . Dr o b i n s k i , F at h er ’s fi rs t PP W, a n d l at er re v i ew ed h ern o t es ab o u tFa t h er ’s 1 6 ca s e w h en h e t o o ko v eras Fa t h er ’s PP W. 17 { 18} Mr
. G ac ze w ski te st if ie d th at D ep ar tm en t P PW s are r es pons ibl e fo r m ee tin g 18 m onthly w ith pa re nts , c ondu ct ing psy ch osoc ia l a sse ssm en ts, w orkin g w ithpare nts to12

1 crea te trea tm en t p lans, and coordinating s ervices f or parents and children. Mr
. 2 G ac ze w ski te sti fi ed

tha t a s C hil d’ s P PW , he part ic ipa te d inthe c re at ion of the 3 tr ea tm en t pl an s inthi s c as e. Whe n a ske d w hy F athe r’ s tr ea tm en t pl anc ont ai ne d on ly 4 one elem ent—the psy chosocial assessm ent—as oppo sed to Moth er’ s treatm ent plan 5 which incorporated num erous item s, Mr. Ga czew ski explained that the psy chosocial 6 assessm ent is the first step of a tre atm ent plan and that whe n t h e psy chosocial 7 as se ssm en t i s co m

ple te , the D ep ar

tm en t es ta

bli she s a m or e co m

pr eh en siv e tr ea tm en t 8 plan ba se d up on the c lie nt’ s ne ed s. Mr
. G ac ze w ski sa id tha t F athe r cam e int o th e 9 of fi ce a t the be gin nin g of

the c as e but

did not c om ple te the psy ch osoc ia l a sse ssm en t. 10 { 19} Mr
. G a c z e w sk i t e st i f i e d t ha tM ot

he r , o n t he o t he r

h a nd , c om

pl e t e d he r 11 psy chosocial assessm ent right aw ay and had been working her treatm ent plan. Mr
. 12 Ga czew ski indicated that as Child’s PPW , he worked m ore w ith Moth er than Fa ther 13 be ca use Mo ther wa s inv olv ed in the c as e an d F athe r w as not . Mr
. G ac ze w ski 14 testified that Mother regularly attended se ssion s, that he interacted with Mo ther 15 dur ing vis its , an d that he pe rf orm ed Mothe r’ s in de pe nde nt l ivi ng a sse ssm en t. H e sa id 16 he would have done the sam e for F ather had Fa ther shown interest in being in volv ed 17 in the case. 18 { 20} Mr
. G ac ze w ski te sti fi ed tha t F athe r w as pr es en t a t the c ust ody h eari ng o n17 On January 15, 2015, the State f

iled a nolle prosequi as to Father’ s crim inal 3 18 ch arg es rel at edto th e d om es ti c v io le nc e in ci de nt wit h M ot he r. See Ca se N o. D -2 02- 19 CR -2 013- 0529 8. 13 1 Marc h 7, 201 3 and the m ed ia tio n c onf er en ce a nd p le a he ar ing on Apr il 5, 201 3, a nd 2 w as m ad e aw ar e of

his tr ea tm en t pl an . F athe r w as a lso pr ovi de d w iththe 3 D e p a rt men t ’s c o n t a c ti n f o rmat i o n . M r . Ga c z e w s k i t e s t i f i e dt h a taP P W i s a l w a ys 4 pr es en t a t m ed ia tio ns and c ourt he ar in gs and tha t the P PW c ar ri es bus ine ss c ar ds 5 containin g the De partm ent’ s contact inform ation. T o Mr. Ga czew ski’s knowledge, 6 Fathe r w as not

inc ar ce rate d be tw ee n M ar ch201 3 and N ove m be r 2013
. 7 { 21} Fathe r w as a rr es te d inN ove m be r 2013 fo r a dom es tic vio le nc e inc ide nt w ith 8 Mothe r. Mr
. G ac ze w ski te sti fe d that Ms
. D ro bin ski vis ite d F athe r at MD C a ft er

thi s 3 9 arre st, but Father’ s psy chosocial assessm ent was not com pleted at that tim e. Mr. 10 G ac ze w ski te sti fi ed

that Ms
. D ro bin ski ’ s no te s f ro m the vis it did

not ind ic at e 11 an ythi ng o the r than th e fa ct tha t Fathe r tol d Ms
. D ro bin ski he ha d be enhom el es s and 12 w ith out

apho ne a nd tha t w as w hy he ha d no t c ont ac te d th e D ep ar tm en t. 13 { 22} The rem ainder of Mr. Ga czew ski’s testim ony focused on the cont ac t Mr. 14 G ac ze w ski ha d w ith Fathe r af te r be ing as sig ne d a s F athe r’ s P PW on M ar ch21, 201 4. 1 5 M r. Ga cz ew s k i t es t i fi ed t h at h e h ad n o th ad an y co n t ac twi t h Fa t h erb ec au s e F at h er ’s 16 w he re ab out s w er e unkn ow n to hi m unt il A ugus t 20 14. H e te sti fi ed tha t he m ad e14

1 ef fo rt s to tr y to loca te F athe r by

a ski ng M oth er

about F athe r’ s w he re ab out s, but 2 Mothe r pr ovi de d no inf or m at ion
. H e al so s ai d he c he ck ed the MD C w eb sit e ar ound 3 Apr il or

May 201 4 and a ga in i n Ju ly

201 4, but Fathe r w as not lis te d as an inm at e the 4 tim es Mr. Ga czew ski checked. Mr. Ga czew ski testified that he did not send Father 5 le tte rs be ca

use F athe r w as not

li ste d onthe MD C w eb sit e, but sa id h e wou ld ha ve 6 sent Father letter s if he had located him
. Mr. Ga czew ski testified that between Mar ch 7 2014 a nd July

201 4 F athe r ha d no t c ont ac te d hi m , nor ha d F athe r vis ite d C hil d. 8 { 23} Mr
. G ac ze w ski te sti fi e d th at F athe r ha d c ont ac t i nf

orm at ionf

or the D ep ar tm en t 9 but ne ve r at te m

pte d to m ak e co nta ct

wit h the D ep ar

tm en t, ne ve r se nt l et te rs to the 10 De partm ent, never

m ade p hone calls to the Depar tm ent, and never had any one contact 11 the D ep ar

tm en t on his be ha lf

. Mr
. G ac ze w ski re ite rate d that both th e D ep ar tm en t and 12 Father we re responsib le for m aking ef forts toward reunification of the fam ily and that 13 it w as not

sol el y the D ep ar

tm en t’ s r es pons ibi lity . Mr
. G ac ze w ski te sti fi ed tha t M s. 14 Dr obin ski left a m essage on her voice m ai l wh en she left her PPW positi on which 15 pr ovi de d M r. G ac ze w ski ’ s ph one num be r an d M r. G ac ze w ski ’ s supe rv iso r’ s ph one 16 num be r, a nd tha t the voice m ai lbo x w as ope n th ro ugh Jul y 201 4. Mr
. G ac ze w ski 1 7 t es t i fi ed t h at h e n ev erre ce i v ed a mes s ag e f ro m Fa t h eran dt h at Mr . Ga cz e w s k i ’s 18 superviso r never c ontacted Mr. Ga czew ski abo ut r e c e i vi ng any

m e ss a ge s from

Father.15

1 { 24} Mr
. G ac ze w ski te sti fi ed tha t i n hi s op in io n, Ch ild w oul d in cur gr ea t bo dil y 2 harm if Child we re r eturned to Father. H e tes t i fi ed that Child’s highly specialized 3 needs would not be m et given Father’ s lack of involv em ent in any services to date. 4 T o m iti ga te the se sa fe ty thr ea ts, he not ed tha t Fathe r w oul d have to pa rt ic ipa te in the 5 psy ch osoc ia l a sse ssm en t, tha t the D ep ar tm en t w oul d ha ve to l ook at F athe r’ s “ le ve ls 6 of f unc tio nin g, ” tha t “ re fe rr al s w oul d .
. . ne ed to be m ad e,” and tha t F athe r w oul d 7 ha ve to be inv olv ed

“ w ith[ Ch ild ’ s] se rv ic e pr ovi de rs ove r a peri od of ti m e, m ay be 8 six m onths, so tha t [ Fathe r co uld ] ha ve a fu ll unde rs tandi ng o f the lon g- te rm ne ed s 9 of [ Ch ild ]
. ” Mr
. G ac ze w ski te sti fi ed tha t Fathe r ha d m ad e no at te m pts to pr ovi de f

or 10 Child and t ha t t he l a st c on t a c t F a t he r ha d w i t h C hi l d w a s i n M a r c h 20 13
. Mr. 11 Ga czew ski testified that in light o f this i n fo rm ation, the conditio ns that rendered 12 Fathe r una

ble to pr ope rl y care fo r Ch ild co uld not be ch an ge d in the for es eeable 13 fu tur e. He furthe r te sti fi ed tha t Chi ld w as ad opt ab le , ba se d on m onthly hom e vis its 1 4 h e c o n du ct ed wi t h Ch i l d fr o m M ar ch 2 0 1 3 t o Ap ri l 2 0 1 4 , an d t h at i twa s i n Ch i l d ’s 15 be st i nte re st t o te rm ina te F athe r’ s pare nta l r igh ts. 16 3. Fath er’s T estim ony 17 { 25} Fathe r te sti fi ed that he ha d be eninc ar ce rate d c ont inu ousl y sin ce O ct obe r 9, 18 2013
. H e sta te d th at

MD C s en t hi m

to Tex as twi ce but

tha t duri ng those ti m es his16

1 na m e w oul d have ap pe ar ed on MD C’ s we bsi te as be ing in cu sto dy a t M D C h ad

the 2 D ep ar tm en t a tte m

pte d to loc at e him
. Fathe r re ite rate d tha t he ha d ne ve r, a t any poi nt 3 s i n c e Oc t o b e r

9 , 2 0 1 3 , b e e n r e l e a s e df

r o m MD C ’s c u s t o d y. 4 { 26} T he dis tr ic t c ourt no te d du ri ng F athe r ’ s t e s t i m o n y th at th e D ep ar tm en t ty pic al ly 5 se nds le tte rs to inc ar ce rate d pare nts r em ind ing the m to w ork th e tr ea tm en t pl an , a lon g 6 w ith se lf

-a ddr es se d, stam

pe d en ve lop es . Fathe r te sti fi ed tha t M s. D ro bin ski did not 7 ha ve F athe r pa rt ic ipa te in a psy ch osoc ia l ass es sm en t wh en she vis ite d him in cu sto dy 8 at MD C i n N ove m

be r 2013 , nor

did she e ve r se nd h im

le tte rs or

se lf- ad dr es se d, 9 stam pe d e nve lop es . H e al so t es tif ie d th at Ms
. D ro bin ski ne ve r inv ite d Fathe r to m ak e 10 anappoi ntm en t t o do apsy ch osoc ia l a sse ssm en t or of fe re d Fa the r an y

da te s to do the 11 as se ss m en t. Fat he r fu rth er tes ti fie d th at whe n Ms. Drob in sk i vi si te d Fath er at MDC 12 in Novem

ber 2013, the only

inform ation Ms. D robinsk i provided to Father wa s that 13 Ch ild ’ s pe rm an en cy

planni ng goa l w oul d be c ha nge d f ro m r eunif ic at ionto ad opt ion
. 14 Fathe r al so t es tif

ie d, how ev er, tha t he ne ve r co m m uni ca te d w iththe D ep ar tm en t 15 w hil e he w as in cu sto dy , ne ve r re que ste d that a ps y ch osoc ia l a sse ssm en t be 16 co m ple te d, a nd n ev er

r eque ste d to part ic ipate in his tr ea tm en t pl an . 17 { 27} A t t h e e n d o f t h e f i r s t d a y o f t h e t e rm i n a t i o n o f p a r e n t a l r i g h t s h e ar ing , the 18 De partm ent indicated that it needed to call a rebuttal witness. The c ourt determ ined17

1 tha t a r ec es s w oul d be r equir ed a nd c ont inu ed

the he ar ing f

or appr oxi m at el y

six 2 m onths. T he he ar ing r es um ed on F eb ru ar

y 6, 201 5. 3 J. Te rm in at ion of P ar en ta l Righ ts He ar in g—S ec on d D ay 4 1. Rich ard Gacze w sk i’s Testim ony 5 { 28} Mr
. G ac ze w ski te sti fi ed a ga in f or the D ep ar

tm en t. Mr
. G ac ze w ski f ir st 6 addressed Father’ s testim ony that Father had bee n contin uous ly incarce rated sin ce 7 O ct obe r 2013
. T o r eb ut this te sti m ony , the D ep ar tm en t i ntr oduced be nc h warr an ts 8 iss ue d f

or F athe r in May , June , an d Aug ust 2014 in Fa the r’ s pend ing c ri m ina l c as es . 9 Mr
. G ac ze w ski te sti fi ed tha t he che ck ed Fathe r’ s pend ing cr im ina l ca se s and w as able 10 to de te rm ine tha t, co ntr ar y to Fathe r’ s te sti m ony , F athe r ha d, in fa ct , be enin an d ou t 11 of c ust ody dur ing thi s ti m e. Mr
. G ac ze w ski state d tha t he ch ec ke d th e MD C w eb sit e 12 around the tim e th e b ench warrants were issu ed and that Father w as not list ed as an 13 inm ate. Mr. Ga czew ski testified further that in reviewing Father’ s pendin g crim inal 14 ca se s, he de te rm in ed that Fathe r’ s c ur re nt i nc ar ce ratio n w as f

or ne gle ct a nd a buse 1 5 c h a r g e s , t h e s a me a l l e g a t i o n s t h a tb r o u g h tC h i l di n t o t h e De p a rt men t ’s c u s t o d y. 16 { 29} Mr. Ga czew ski testified that on Septem ber 2 , 2014, six day s after the first day 17 of the te rm ina tio n he ar ing , he m ai le d ale tte r to F athe r at MD C. W iththe le tte r, he 18 included a psy chosocial assessm ent and self-addressed, stam ped envelopes. Father18

1 pr om ptl y c om pleted an d re tur

ne d th e psy ch osoc ia l a sse ssm en t. Upon re ce ivi ng 2 Father’ s psy chosocial a ssessm ent, Mr. Ga czew ski updated Father’ s treatm en t p l an 3 with pe r so na l i z e d t r e a t m e nt r e c om m e nd a t i on s. O n S e pt e m be r 23 , 20 14, Mr. 4 G a c z e w s k i ma i l e dF a t h e r a n o t h e r l e t t e r i n w h i c h h e s p e c i f

i e dt h e t r e a t me n tp l a n i t e ms 5 an d su gge ste d w ay s f

or F athe r to m ee t the it em s w hil e inc ar ce rate d. 6 { 30} A t the he ar ing , Mr
. G ac ze w ski ide nti fi ed m an y of the r equir em en ts o utl ine d in 7 Fathe r’ s pl an : part ic ipa te in ps y ch olo gic al , sub stanc e ab use , a nd p ar en tin g 8 assessm ents and follow the recom m en d ations; p articipate in dom estic violence 9 co unse lin g c la sse s; p ar tic ipa te in Ch ild ’ s no n- em er ge nc y m ed ic al appoi ntm en ts; 10 provide contact inform ation f or poss ible placem ents f

or Child; pro v i d e a financial 11 plan for how Father would supp ort Child; m aintain c ontact with the D epartm ent PPW 12 at le as t on ce am onth; i nf

orm the D ep ar

tm en t P PW

of a ny c ha nge s inF athe r’ s a ddr es s 13 or phone nu m

ber; and provide contact inform ation fo r Fath er’ s case m anager at 14 MD C. Mr. Ga cz ew ski a cknow le dge d th at som e of the it em s inthe ne w tr ea tm en t 15 plan, suc h a s Fathe r at te ndi ng C hil d’ s m ed ic al appoi ntm en ts, w er e im poss ibl e fo r 16 Fathe r to f

ulf ill w hil e in j ai l, but

Mr
. G ac ze w ski ha d in cl ude d r ec om m en da tio ns f

or 1 7 h o w F at h erco u l d fu l fi l l ea ch i t em wh i l e i n ca rc er at ed . F o r e x amp l e, as t o Ch i l d ’s 18 m edical appointm ents, Mr. Ga czew s k i indicated that he intend ed to provid e Fa ther19

1 with updates regarding Child’s m edical needs. Mr. Ga czew ski testified that he never 2 he ar d ba ck

f ro m F athe r. F athe r onl y

se nt l et te rs to Ch ild
. 3 { 31} Mr
. G ac ze w ski te sti fi ed tha t he sen t fol low -u p le tte rs to Fathe r on O ct obe r 16, 4 2014 and again on Nov ember 21, 2014 , but did not rec eive a r espons e. Mr. 5 Ga czew ski further testified that he inform ed Father in his Novem ber 21, 2014 letter 6 tha t F athe r an d C hil d w er e re ce ivi ng n ewP PW s and h e pr ovi de d c ont ac t i nf orm at ion 7 fo r tho se w orke rs . F athe r’ s ne w P PW w as ide nti fi ed

a s L ar ei naManue lit o. 8 2. Lareina M anuelito’s Te stim ony 9 { 32} L ar ei naManue lit o, F athe r’ s th ir d P PW , the n te sti fi ed about he r co nta ct

w ith 10 Fathe r in the m onths lea din g up to the se co nd day of the te rm ina tio n of pare nta l r igh ts 11 hearing. Ms. Manuelito testified that she re ceived letters f rom Father in Dece m

ber 12 2014 and January 2015 , but the letters w ere specifically directed to Child, not to her. 13 Sh e te stifie d th at she se nt a le tte r to F athe r at

the e nd o f January

201 5, a tta ch ing a 14 co py of Fathe r’ s pr ev iou s tr ea tm en t pl an , not es f ro m the la st h om e vis it w ithCh ild , 15 an d se lf

-a ddr es se d, stam

pe d e nve lop es so Fathe r co uld co rr es pond w ithhe r an d w ith 16 Ch ild
. Whe n M s. Manue lit o w as as ke d w hy she ha d no t c ont ac te d F athe r in 17 Novem

ber or D ecem

ber 2014, Ms. Manuelito testified that she was a cclim ating to h er 18 ne w r ole a s aP PW
. Ms
. Manue lit o a lso te st ified tha t the D ep ar tm en t w as not20

1 curr en tly

auth or iz ing vis its to cl ie nts in j ai l and tha t P PW s we re onl y c om m uni ca tin g 2 thr oughle tte rs . Ms
. Manue lit o te sti fi ed tha t she ha d no t r ec ei ve d any doc um en ta tio n 3 fr om F at he r re ga rd ing his tr ea tm en t pl an . 4 K. Term ination of F ather’ s Paren tal Right s 5 { 33} A t the cl ose of

the se co nd d ay

of the te rm ina tio n of

pare nta l r igh ts h eari ng, the 6 di s t ri ct court criticize d the Depar tm ent for not doin g m ore for Father while he was 7 inc ar ce rate d, but

ult im at el y

f ound tha t the D ep ar

tm en t m ad e re as ona

ble e ff orts t o 8 assist Father under the fac ts and c ircum stances of the case. The court also found that 9 the c ondi tio ns and c au se s of Ch ild ’ s ne gle ct a nd a buse w er e unl ike ly

to ch an ge in the 10 fore s ee ab le future. T he court did no t enter a finding of futility or aggravated 11 ci rc um stanc es . T he c ourt t er m ina te d F athe r’ s pare nta l r igh ts. 12 { 34} Fathe r ap pe al ed the t er m ina tio n of

his pare nta l r igh ts, a rg uin g th at the 13 D ep ar tm en t h ad not

f ulf ill ed it s ob lig at ionto m ak e re as ona ble e ff orts and tha t the 14 D ep ar tm en t “ m ad e its ow n de te rm ina tio n f ro m the out se t tha t effo rt s to w ork w ith 15 Fathe r tow ar d re uni fi ca tio n wou ld be fu til e. ” T he Co urt of Appe al s r ev er se d, f

ind ing 16 that there w as not sub stantial e vidence to prove by clear and convin cing e vidence that 17 th e Dep art m en t m ad e rea so na bl e effo rts . Keo n H. , 201 7- N MC A -0 04, ¶ ¶ 1, 19. T he 18 Co urt of Ap pe al s no te d th at the D ep ar

tm en t w as f

re e to b ri ng a ddi tio na l a lle ga tio ns21

1 of ne gl ect or a bu se on rem an d. Id

. ¶ 18. 2 { 35} T he D ep ar

tm en t pe tit ion ed fo r a w ri t of ce rt ior ar i on the iss ue of w he the r the 3 Co urt of

Appe al s e rr ed

in re ve rs ing the dis tr ic t c ourt’ s f ind ing of r ea sona ble e ff orts. 4 W e granted cer

tiorari and exercise our j urisdictio n to r eview the opin ion of the Court 5 of Appe al s unde r A rt ic le V I, Se ct ion 2 of the N ew Me xic o Cons tit uti on and Ru le 12- 6 50 2 NM RA. 7 II. STA ND AR

D O F REVIE W 8 { 36} T he re is no d isp ute tha t C hil d w as ne gle ct ed a nd/ or abuse d as de fi ne d by

the 9 Ch il dr en ’s Cod e. See § 32A-4-2 (2009, am ended 201 7). The issue before the Court 10 is whether there was subs tantial evidence t o supp ort the district court’ s finding that 11 th e Dep art m en t m ad e rea so na bl e effo rts to ass is t Fa th er. See § 32A -4 -2 8( B) (2 ). “ T he 12 statutory

prere quisi te of reasonable efforts to assist the parent m ust be satisfied bef

ore 13 parental righ ts m ay

be term inated.” State ex rel. Children, Yo uth & Fam ilies Dep’t 14 v. Pat ri ci a H. , 200 2-NMC A- 061, ¶ 21, 132 N. M. 299, 47 P. 3d 85 9. “ Substantial 15 ev ide nc e is r el ev an t e vid en ce tha t a r ea sona ble m ind w oul d a cc ep t a s a de qua te to 16 supp ort a conclusion.” Id

. ¶ 22 (internal quotation m arks and citation om itted). 17 { 37} “ Pare nts ha ve af undam en ta l l ibe rty

int er es t i n th e care a nd c ust ody of the ir 18 ch il dr en ; d ue pro ces s o f la w is req ui red be fo re pare nt s can be de pr iv ed of th atrig ht .”22

1 State e x rel. C hildr en, Youth & Fam ilies Dep’t v . M arlene C. , 201 1- N MS C- 005, ¶ 37, 2 149 N
. M. 315 , 248 P
. 3d 8 63. D ue pr oc es s r equir es tha t f ind ings ne ce ssary

to 3 te rm in at e p aren ta l ri gh ts be su pp or te d b y cle ar an d c on vi nc in g e vi de nc e. Sant osky 4 v. Kramer , 4 5 5 U
. S
. 7 4 5 , 7 4 7
- 4 8 ( 1 9 8 2) ; State ex rel. Children, Yo uth & Fam ilies 5 D ep ’t v. Na tha n H. , 2 016-N MC A -0 43, ¶ 31, 370 P
. 3d 7 82. “ Cl ear an d c onvi nc ing 6 evidence m eans evidence that instantlytilts the scales in th e af fi rmative when 7 we ighed agains t the evidence in oppo sition and the fact f inder’ s m ind is left with an 8 abiding conviction th at the evidence is true.” Na th an H. , 201 6- N MC A -0 43, ¶ 31 9 (internal quotation m arks and citation om itted). 10 { 38} “ O ur

standard of r ev ie w is the re fo re w he the r, vie w ing the e vid en ce in the li ght 11 m ost f av or ab le to the [D ep ar

tm en t] , the f

ac t f ind er c oul d pr ope rl y

de te rm ine tha t the 12 c l e a r a nd c on vi nc i ng e vi de nc e st a nd a r d w a s m e t.” In re T erm ina tio n of

P are nta l 13 R igh ts o

f Ev entyr J. , 199 5- N MC A -0 87, ¶ 3, 120 N
. M. 463, 902 P. 2d 1 066; se e als o 14 State e

x rel. Children, You th & Fam ilies Dep’t v . H ector C. , 200 8- N MC A -0 79, ¶ 11, 15 144 N
. M. 222 , 185 P
. 3d 1 072 (r equir ing c le ar a nd c onvi nc ing e vid en ce in te rm ina tio n 16 ca se s)
. O ur

standard of r ev ie w d oe s no t r equir e us t o de te rm ine “ w he the r the 17 [d istrict] court could have reached a differe nt conclusi on.” Pat ri ci a H. , 2 0 0 2- 18 N MC A -0 61, ¶

31. F urthe rm or e, thi s C ourt i s no t pe rm itt ed to “ re w ei gh the23

1 evidence.” Ev entyr J. , 199 5- N MC A -0 87, ¶ 3; se e als o Sta te ex re l. Ch ild re n, Youth 2 & Fam ilie s De

p ’t v. Vanessa C. , 200 0- N MC A -0 25, ¶ ¶ 24, 28, 128 N
. M. 701 , 997 3 P. 2d 8 33 ( pr ovi din g th at w he n r eview ing a

te rm ina tio n of

pare nta l r igh ts c as e, the 4 ap pe llate c ourt m

ust not re w ei gh the e vid en ce nor a sse ss the c re dib ili ty

of w itn es se s, 5 but m ust defer to the conclusion s of the trier of fac t). 6 III. DISC US SION 7 A. Term ination of P arental Rights Pr oceedin gs and the Re asonable Effort s 8 Re quire m ent 9 { 39} T he re as ona

ble ef fo rt s re qui re m en t or igi na te d inthe A dopt ionA ssi stanc e an d 1 0 C h i l dW e l f

a r e A c to f

1 9 8 0 , w h i c h c o n d i t i o n e df e d e r a l f u n d i n g o n t h e r e qu i r e m en t 11 tha t st at es put fo rth reas onabl e ef fo rt s to r eunif

y af am ily be fo re pla ci ng a

c hil d up 12 fo r ad op ti on . See Cri st in e H. Kim , P utt ing R ea son B ac k into th e R ea sona ble E ffo rts 13 Re quirement in Child Abuse and Neglect C

ases , 1999 U
. I ll. L
. Re v. 287 , 288 ( 1999 ) 14 (c iti ng 4 2 U
. S. C. §§ 6 20- 28, 670- 79a ) (1 991, am en de d 1997)
. C ongr es s e na ct ed thi s 15 le gis la tio n to li m it the “ unne ce ssary pla ce m en t of ch ildre n in fo ste r care w ho c oul d 16 have been adequately protected at hom e if their f am il i es h ad acce ss to su pport 17 se rv ic es .” Kim , supra , at 289. Congress later am ended this leg islation to clarify that 18 the ch ild ’ s he al th an d sa fe ty is the param ount

c onc er n inde te rm ini ng the r ea sona ble 19 effo rts to be m ad e an d i n m ak in g t ho se effo rts . See Adoption and Safe Fam ilies Act24

1 of 1997, Pub. L . N o. 105-89, 111 Stat. 2115 (1997) (codified as am ended in scattered 2 se ct ion s of

42 U
. S. C. ); 42 U. S. C. 671( a) (1 5) (A ) (2 012)
. I n th e am en de d le gis la tio n, 3 Co ngr es s so ught

to str ike a ba lanc e be tw ee n the int er es ts of fam ily uni ty an d he al th 4 an d s afet y . Kim , supra , a t 31 6- 17. 5 { 40} T he N ew Me xic o L eg isl at ur e ha s ad opt ed

the sa m e ap pr oa chto the r ea sona ble 6 ef fo rt s r equir em en t: “ Re as ona ble e ffo rts s ha ll be m ad e to p re se rv e an d r eunif y the 7 fam ily , with the param ount concern being the child’s hea lth and safety .” See § 3 2A8 4- 22( C) ( 2009 , a m en de d 20 16) ; se e a ls o In re Gra ce H. , 201 4- N MS C- 034, ¶ 45, 335 9 P. 3d 7 46 ( “ A c hil d’ s he al th and s af ety sha ll be th e par am ount

c onc er n. ” (quot ing 10 N MS A 197 8, § 32 A -1 -3 (A ) (2 009) ))
. D istri ct co urts, in te rm ina tio n of pa re nta l r igh ts 11 pr oc ee din gs, a re ins tr

uc te d to “ giv e pr im ar

y co nsi de ratio n to the phy sic al , m en ta l and 12 em oti ona l w el fare an d ne ed s of the ch ild
. ” Se ct ion 32A -4 -2 8( A ). Se ct io n 32A -4
- 13 28(B)(2) provides that the district court shall term inate parental righ ts to a neglected 14 or abused child when 15 the c ondi tio ns and c au se s of th e neg le ct a nd a buse a re unl ike ly

to 16 change in the foreseea ble future despite re ason abl e ef for ts by the 17 [D ] ep ar

tm en t or oth er appr opr ia te a ge nc y

to as sis t the par en t i n 18 adj ustin g the condit ions th at render the parent u n ab l e to properly car e 19 fo r the c hil d. 20 (E m pha sis a dde d. ) T he dis tr ic t c ourt m ay e xc use the re as ona

ble ef fo rt s r equir em en t25

1 when “ there is a c lear showing that the efforts would be futile” or “ the parent has 2 su bjec te d t he ch il d t o a gg rav at edcir cu m st an ces .” Sect io n 3 2A- 4- 28 (B)( 2) (a), (b ). 3 { 41} Section 32A-4-28(B) (2) does not e num erate the specific m ethods o f assistance 4 tha t are suf

fi ci en t t o c onst itu te r ea sona ble e ff orts, be y ond st at in g th at the e ff orts 5 shou ld b e dir ec te d to a ssi st the pare nt i n r em edy ing the c ondi tio ns and c au se s of 6 ne gle ct a nd a buse
. T ha t be ing the ca se , w e ha ve tr ad iti ona lly c onsi de re d th e tot al ity 7 of th e ci rcu m st an ces when rev ie win g t he di st ric t co ur t’s d et erm in at io n. See State ex 8 re l. Chi ld

re n, Yo ut h & Fami li es Dep’ t v. Al fo ns o M.-E. , 201 6- N MC A -0 21, ¶ 59, 366 9 P. 3d 2 82; Pat ri ci a H. , 200 2- N MC A -0 61, ¶ 31. E ff orts t o a ssi st a

pare nt “ m ay

inc lud e 10 ind ivi dua l, gr oup, a nd f am ily c ouns el ing , sub stanc e ab use tr ea tm en t, m en ta l he al th 11 services, transportation, child care, and other therapeutic services. ” Pat r i c i a H. , 12 2002 -N MCA -061, ¶ 26. As our Court of Appeals has noted, “ [w ] hat co n stitut es 13 re as ona

ble e ff orts m ay vary w ithanum

be r of f ac tor s, suc h a s th e le ve l of c oope ratio n 14 de m onstrate d by

the pare nt and the r ec al ci tr an ce of the pro bl em s tha t r en de r the 15 parent unable to provid e adequate pare nting .” Id

. ¶ 23. 16 { 42} T he dis tr ic t co urt’ s co nsi de ratio n of Ch ild ’ s he al th and s af

ety doe s no t r el ie ve 17 th e Dep art m en t o f th e st atut or y req ui rem en t th atreas on ab le effo rts be m ad e. Se e id. 18 ¶ 21. When exam ining whether the De partm ent’ s efforts w ere reasonable in this case,26

1 we find it helpful to look to the dist inction our Court of Appeals has drawn betw een 2 “ act iv e” ef

fo rts an d “ pa ss iv e” ef

fo rts in ot he r te rm in at io n c as es . Se e Sta te e x re l. 3 Ch il dr en , Y

ou th & Fami li es Dep ’t v . Y odel l B. , 2016-NMC A- 029, 367 P.3d 881
. In 4 cases where the Indian Child W elfar e A ct (IC WA) applies, a showing of active e ff orts 5 on the pa rt of th e D ep ar tm en t i s r equir ed

be fo re apare nt’ s pare nta l r igh ts m ay be 6 te rm in at ed
. Id

. ¶ 8. T he Co urt of Appe al s ha s dis tin gui she d ac tiv e effo rts f ro m 7 pa ssi ve e ff

orts, de te rm ini ng tha t “ ac tiv e ef fo rt s c onno te s am or e inv olv ed a nd l es s 8 passive standard than that of rea sonable efforts.” Id

. ¶ 20 ( int er na l qu ota tio n m ar

ks 9 an d c itatio n om itt ed ). T he Co urt of Appe al s de sc ri be s th e dis tin ct iona s f oll ow s: 10 Pa ssi ve e ff

orts are w he re aplan is dra w n up an d th e cl ie nt m ust de ve lop 11 his or

he r ow n r es our ce s to w ar ds b ri ngi ng i t t o f ru iti on. A ct ive e ff

orts 12
. . . is w he re the state [ PP W ] ta ke s the cl ie nt thr oughthe ste ps o f the 13 plan r athe r than r equir ing tha t the plan be pe rf orm ed on i ts o w n. 14 Id

. ¶ 17 (in te rn al quot at ion m ar ks and ci ta tio n om itt ed ). “ T he te rm a ct ive e ff orts, by 15 de fi nit ion , im

pli es he igh te ne d r es pons ibi lity c om pa re d to pa ssi ve e ff

orts. G ivi ng the 16 pa re nt a

tr ea tm en t pl ana nd wa iti ng f or [ the pare nt] to co m

ple te it w oul d c onst itu te 17 passive efforts.” Id

. ( quot ing In re A .N. , 200 5 M T 19, ¶ 23, 325 Mo nt. 379 , 106 P. 3d 18 556)
. “ [A ] ct ive e ff

orts r equir es m or e than po int ing the pare nt in the ri ght dir ec tio n, 19 it requires ‘ leading the horse to w ater. ’ ” Y odel l B. , 201 6-NMC A- 029, ¶ 17 (internal 20 quot ation m arks and citation om itted).27

1 B. The Di s tr ict C ourt’ s Det erm ination That the De partm ent Made 2 Re asonable Effort s to Assist F ather Is S upport ed by Sub stantial Evidenc e 3 { 43} In this c as e, the D ep artm en t’s ef fo rts , alt ho ug h i m

pe rfec t, were reas on ab le
. See 4 Pat ri ci a H. , 200 2- N MC A -0 61, ¶ 28 ( “ [O ] ur

j ob i s no t t o de te rm ine w he the r [the 5 D ep ar tm en t] did

e ve ry thi ng p oss ibl e; ou r task i s . . . to [d et er m ine ] w he the r [the 6 D ep ar tm en t] c om

pli ed w iththe m ini m

um r equi red unde r law . ”)
. I n th e be gin nin g 7 m onth s of the case, the Depar tm ent prepared a

treatm ent plan for Father , w ent over 8 the treat m en t plan with Father, provided Father with the D epartm ent’ s contact 9 inf orm at ion , a nd s ch ed

ule d a ppoi ntm en ts f

or F athe r’ s ps y ch osoc ia l a sse ssm en t. 10 Fathe r did

not sho w u p fo r the appoi ntm en ts and d id n ot p ar tic ipa te in the 11 psy ch osoc ia l a sse ssm en t. 12 { 44} The district court hear d testim ony that Father w as t aken into custodyin either 13 O ct obe r or

N ove m be r 2013
. T his m eans tha t Fa the r w as not inc ar ce rate d for the f ir st 14 se ve n or

e igh t m onths o f thi s c as e; tha t i s, Marc h 2013 to O ct obe r/ N ove m be r 2013
. 15 Fathe r w as pr es en t a t the c ust ody he ar ing on M ar ch7, 201 3 and the m ed ia tio n 16 co nf er en ce a nd p le a he ar ing on Apr il 5, 2013 , w as m ad e aw ar e of his tr ea tm en t pl an , 17 and was provided the Depar tm ent’ s contact inform ation. But Father never contacted 18 the D ep ar

tm en t w he n he w as out

of c ust ody dur ing the f

ir st s ev era l m onths o f the 19 ca se or

dur ing any

oth er pe ri od o f tim e w he n he wa s out of cus tody . T he sa m e is tru e28

1 fo r the tim e Fathe r w as inc ar ce rate d; he m ad e no at te m pts to co nta ct

the D ep ar

tm en t. 2 { 45} The D ep ar

tm en t’ s se nio r PP W , Mr
. G ac ze w ski , ha s be enpe rs ona lly a nd 3 i n t i m at el y i n v o l v ed wi t h t h i s ca s e s i n ce Ch i l dwa s t ak e n i n t o t h e D ep ar t m en t ’s 4 cu sto dy

on F eb ru ar

y 21, 201 3. H e se rv ed

a s C hil d’ s P PW

f ro m March 20 13 to 5 N ove m be r 2014 a nd ser

ve d as Fa the r’ s PP W fr om Marc h 2014 t o N ove m be r 2014
. 6 Fo r al m ost

tw o y ears , Mr
. G ac ze w ski se rv ed ac ri tic al r ole in thi s m at te r an d, ha vin g 7 done so, w as able to te sti fy to Fathe r’ s la ck

of part ic ipa tio n in

the c as e fr om

it s 8 inc ep tio n. 9 { 46} Mr
. G ac ze w ski ’ s c ont inu ous inv olv em en t i n th e ca se m ay ha ve pr ovi de d th e 10 dis tr ic t c ourt w iththe n ex us it ne ed ed to ga in a

br oa de r unde rs tandi ng o f the 1 1 De p ar t m en t ’s ef

fo rt s t o as s i s tFa t h e r. Al t h o u g h t h e p i ct u re o f t h e D ep ar t m en t ’s 12 ef fo rt s is by no m eans per fe ct ly

c om ple te , Mr
. G ac ze w ski ’ s te sti m ony , e ve n w ith out 13 the te sti m ony

of F athe r’ s f

ir st PP W , Ms
. D ro bin isk i, ap pe ar s to have be ena de qua te 14 to fi ll an y que sti ona

ble voi d. I f not , how ev er , w he n th e te rm ina tio n of pare nta l r igh ts 15 he ar ing r es um ed

on F eb ru ar

y 6, 201 5, the c ourt he ar d f ro m Mr
. G ac ze w ski about

his 16 ad dit ion al e ff

orts t o a ssi st F athe r w hil e the c ourt w as i n rece ss. T he re is no r ea son 17 why the court could not consider these additio nal efforts when determ ining whether 18 the Depar

tm ent’ s efforts a s a w hole wer e re asonable.29

1 { 47} Si x day s a ft er

the f ir st d ay of the ter m ina tio n of

pare nta l r igh ts h eari ng, the 2 De partm ent sent a letter to Fa ther along with the psy chosocial assessm ent and self3 ad dr es se d, stam

pe d enve lop es . Whe n F athe r re tur ne d th e psy ch osoc ia l a sse ssm en t, 4 the Depar

tm ent prepared a com

prehensive tr eatm ent plan f or Father and sent Father 5 a letter detailing th e w ay s Father could com ply with the plan while in custod y . Father 6 never responded to the De partm ent or acknowledged the treatm ent plan. E ven after 7 the Depar

tm ent sent follow-up letters, Father did not re spon d. Father only sent letters 8 to C hil d. 9 { 48} Both the Departm ent and Father are r espons ible for m aki n g efforts toward 10 reu ni fic at io n o f th e fam il y . See § 32A-4-22(C) ( 2009 , am ended 201 6) (“ [T ] he court 11 sha ll
. . . or de r the [D ] ep ar tm en t to im

ple m en t and the c hil d’ s pare nt . . . to co ope rate 12 with any treatm ent plan approved by the court.”)
. While we acknowledge that Father 13 fi na lly

c om ple te d th e ps y ch osoc ia l a sse ssm en t, F athe r ha s c ont inu ousl y f ai le d to 14 showa ny

de sir e or w ill ing ne ss t o a ddr es s th e co ndi tio ns an d cau se s th at br ough t 15 Child int o custod y . Fath er n ev er c ontacted the Departm ent, he m issed or canceled 16 scheduled appo intm ents with the De partm ent, and he only visited Child once or twic e 17 at the beginnin g of the case. 18 { 49} A ro und the tim e of the ple a he ar ing in Apr il 2013 , F athe r w as hom el es s and d id30

1 not ha ve a n a ddr es s. A lth oughF athe r ha d be enins tr uc te d by th e court t o m ai nta in 2 regular contact w ith his attorney and the Depar

tm ent, he did not do so. When Father 3 failed to attend the initial j udicial review hearing on May 20, 2013, Father’ s attorney 4 inform ed the court that she did not know why Father wa s not in court and volu nteered 5 tha t w he n sh e had sp oke n w ithF athe r the day be fo re , F athe r sta te d th at he ha d no t 6 be enin tou chw iththe D ep ar tm en t, he ha d no t be gun to en ga ge in his tr ea tm en t pl an , 7 an d he w as onl y

looki ng f

or aj ob. L at er , a t the ini tia l pe rm an en cy he ar ing on 8 N ove m be r 25, 201 3, F athe r’ s a tto rn ey a ga in i nf orm ed the co urt tha t F athe r ha d no t 9 ke pt i n to uc h w ithhe r, c ontrary to the c ourt’ s in str

uc tio ns. 10 { 50} Fathe r w as giv en an oth er ch an ce dur ing the re ce ss o f the te rm ina tio n he ar ing 11 to sho w his w illing ness to w ork with the Depar tm ent on a treatm ent plan and declined 12 to p ar tic ipa te in an y

m eanin gf ul w ay . A lth ough the ne w tr ea tm en t r ec om m en da tio ns 13 pr opos ed

by the D ep ar

tm en t w er e not

y et appr ove d by

the dis tr ic t c ourt, the de lay in 14 form ulating a m ore com

prehensive tr eatm ent plan c ould be attributed to Fa ther’ s lack 15 of initiative in participating in the psy chosocial assessm ent at the outset. T he rec ord 16 ind ic at es tha t the D ep ar tm en t m ad e re as ona

ble e ff orts t o a ssi st F athe r, but

F athe r did 17 not ta ke a dvanta ge of

tho se e ff orts. 18 { 51} W e do acknowledg e t h at t h ere are som e conflicts in the testim ony of Mr.31

1 G ac ze w ski an d F athe r, spe ci fi ca lly tho se pe rt ai nin g to the da te s F athe r w as in an d ou t 2 of custodyand Ms. Drobinski ’ s visit to Father at MDC in Novem ber of 2013. Ba sed 3 on the ev id en ce pr es en te d a t the te rm ina tio n he ar ing , the dis tr ic t c ourt c oul d have 4 co nc lud ed

tha t Mr
. G ac ze w ski w as am or e cr ed ibl e w itn es s th anF athe r. I t i s no t our 5 jo b t o as s es s t h e c re d i b i l i t y o f w i t n es s es ; i t i s o u r du t y t o d ef ert o t h e d i s t ri ct co u rt ’s 6 co nc lu si on s i n t hi s re ga rd
. See V anessa C. , 200 0- N MC A -0 25, ¶ 24. 7 { 52} Whe n m ak ing a det er m ina tio n as to whe the r the D ep ar tm en t’ s ef

fo rt s to a ssi st 8 Fathe r w er e re as ona

ble , the dis tr ic t cour

t wa s re qui re d to c onsi de r Ch ild ’ s he al th and 9 sa fet y . See § 32A -4 -2 2( C) (2 009, am en de d 20 16) ( “ Re as ona ble e ff or ts s ha ll be m ad e 1 0 t o p r e s er v e a n dre u n i fy t h e f amil y, wi t h t h e p ar amo u n tco n ce rn b ei n g t h e c h i l d ’s 11 he al th and s af

ety . ”) ; § 32A -4 -2 8( A ) (“ In pr oc ee din gs t o te rm ina te pare nta l r igh ts, the 12 court shall giv e prim ary consideration to the phy sical, m ental and em otion al w elfar e 13 and needs of the child, includin g the likelih ood o f the child being adop ted if parental 14 rights a r e t e rm i na t e d. ” )
. T hr ou gh ou t t he c our se of t he pr oc e e di ng s i n t hi s case, 15 Ch ild ’ s gu ar dian a d lit em , K ar en Cantr el l, te sti fi ed to Ch ild ’ s e xte nsi ve inj ur ie s and 16 th e hi gh ly s peci al iz ed c ar e tha t C hil d w oul d ne ed f or the r es t of

he r lif e. A t the 17 term ination hearing, Ms. Stordahl testified to the num erous therapies Child had been 18 rece iv in g a nd th e co nt in ue d t reat m en ts th at wou ld be req ui red to ke ep he r al iv e. As17 Fathe r subs eque ntl y ple d no c ont es t t o f

our c ount s of

ch il d ab us e in the 4 18 cri m in al m at te r. See Ca se N o. D -2 02- CR -2 014- 0024 4. 32 1 w as the c as e in Pat ri ci a H. , “ [t ] he te sti m ony r ai se d si gni fi cant que sti ons re ga rd ing 2 [F athe r’ s] pr es en t a

bil ity to m ee t C hil d’ s sp ec ia liz ed ne ed s. ” 200 2- N MC A -0 61, ¶ 33 3 (a ff irm ing te rm ina tio n of m oth er ’ s pa re nta l ri ght s w he re ch ild ha d sp ec ia liz ed ne ed s 4 re qui ri ng a

hig h le ve l of care an d m oth er sto ppe d pa rt ic ipa tin g inse rv ic es ). I nde ed , 5 the dis tr ic t c ourt e xpr es se d c onc er n th at F athe r ha d no t s ho wn any int er es t or 6 ini tiativ e in l earn ing about Ch ild ’ s ne ed s an d ha d not obt ai ne d any

tr ai nin g onhow 7 to c ar e fo r Ch ild
. 8 { 53} A sid e fr om

ar ea sona

ble e ff orts d et er m ina tio n, the d istri ct

c ourt w as a lso 9 re qui re d un de r Se ct ion32A -4 -2 8( B)(2 ) to d et er m ine w he the r the c ondi tio ns and 10 causes of the neglect and abuse we re unlikely to change in the foreseeable f uture. 11 “ Fo res eeab le fut ur e” m ean s “ a rea so na bl y de fin it e ti m e o r wit hi n t he ne ar fu tu re.” 12 Pat ri ci a H. , 2002-NMC A- 061, ¶ 34 (internal quotation m arks and citation om itted). 13 The c ourt found , based on Father ’ s lack of perf orm ance in the past two y ears, that 14 Fathe r w oul d no t r ea lis tic al ly be able to care f

or Ch ild
. T he c ourt a lso c onsi de re d th e 15 fa ct tha t F athe r w as curr en tly inc ar ce rate d on cr im ina l al le ga tio ns of ab use ste m m ing 16 from the case a t hand, w ith no anticipated release date. Se e Pat ri ci a H. , 200 2- 433

1 NMC A- 061, ¶ 34 ( “ [I] n balancing th e interests of the pare nts and child ren, the court 2 is not required to p lace [ Child] indefinitelyin a legal holdin g pattern.” (internal 3 quot ation m arks and citation om itted)). 4 { 54} Beca

use of Child’ s high ly

specialized needs and Father’ s inabilit y to m eet 5 tho se ne ed s inthe ne ar f utu re, as w el l a s F athe r’ s f ai lur e to m ai nta in c ont ac t w ith 6 Ch ild a nd the D ep ar

tm en t, the dis tr ic t c ourt de te rm ine d th at te rm ina tio n w as in 7 Ch ild ’ s be st int er es t. In ad dit ion to fi ndi ng tha t the D ep ar tm en t m ad e re as ona

ble 8 ef fo rt s to a ssi st F athe r, the c ourt f ound tha t F athe r did

not “ subs tanti al ly

c om ply w ith 9 his c ourt- or de re d tr ea tm en t pl ana nd w as not suc ce ssf ul i n a ddr es sin g hi s is sue s w ith 1 0 s ub s t an ce ab u s e, h o u s i n g an d m en t al h ea l t h .” We wi l l n o td i s tu rb t h e d i s t ri ct co u rt ’s 11 fi ndi ngs. 12 IV. CON CLU SION 13 { 55} Consid ering the totalityof the circ um stances, there wa s subs tantial evidence 14 fo r the dis tr ic t c ourt t o f ind tha t the c ondi tio ns and c au se s of C hil d’ s ne gle ct a nd 15 ab use w er e unli ke ly to change in the fo re se ea ble fu tur e de spi te r ea sona ble e ff orts b y 16 the D ep ar

tm en t un de r Se ct ion32A-4- 28( B) (2 ). T he Co urt of Appe al s us ur

pe d th e 17 ro le of

the dis tr ic t c ourt by

r ew ei ghi ng the e vid en ce a nd f ai lin g to giv e de fe re nc e to 18 the dis tr ic t c ourt’ s de te rm ina tio ns. T he re fo re , w e re ve rs e the opi nio n of the Co urt of34

1 Appe al s, a ff

irm the dis tr ic t c ourt or de r te rm ina tin g F athe r’ s pare nta l r igh ts, a nd 2 re m an d f

or pr oc ee din gs c onsi ste nt w iththi s op ini on. 3 { 56} IT IS S O ORDERE D.

4

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ __ 5 PE TRAJIMEN EZ MA ES, Justice 6 WE CO NCUR:

7

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ___ 8 JUD ITH K. NA KAM UR A, Ch ief Justice

9

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ___ 10 CHA RLE S W. DA NIEL S, Justice 11 BARBAR

A J. VIGIL, Justice, specially concur ring 12 GAR Y L . C LINGM AN , Just ice, not p articipating35

1 VIGIL, Justice ( specially concurr ing). 2 { 57} I ag re e w iththe m aj or ity tha t su bst an tia l e vid en ce sup porte d th e te rm ina tio n 3 o f p ar en t al ri g h t s . Th e t o t al i t y o f t h e c i rc u ms t a n ce s s u s t ai n ed t h e d i s t ri ct co u rt ’s 4 eventual determ ination that the De partm ent m ade re asonable efforts to assist Father 5 under Section 32A-4-28(B)( 2). R espectfully , I wr ite separately to underscore three 6 poi nts . F ir st, apare nt’ s r ec al ci tr an ce doe s no t in it se lf r el ie ve the D ep ar tm en t f ro m 7 th e r e s p on si bi li ty to re nd er re as on ab le effo rts . See m aj
. op. ¶ 48. S ec ond, pa ssi ve 8 effo rts are n ot reas on ab le effo rts un de r Sec ti on 32 A-4 -2 8( B)(2 ). Co ntr a m aj
. op. ¶ 42. 9 T hir d, the D ep ar

tm en t m ust do m or e than it

did in thi s c as e to a ssi st a

pare nt who i s 10 inc ar ce rate d inor de r to m eet its statut or y r es pons ibi lity

und er S ec tio n 32 A -4
- 11 28(B)(2). 12 { 58} Fi rs t, the dis tr ic t c ourt cannot te rm ina te pa re nta l ri ght s unl es s it f ind s th at the 13 D ep ar tm en t m ad e “ re as ona

ble e ff orts . . . to as sis t the pa ren t in a dj ust ing the 14 co nd it io ns th atren de r th e p aren t u na bl e to pro pe rly care fo r th e ch il d.” Sect io n 3 2A15 4- 28 (B)( 2)
. T he m ethods of a ssi stanc e re qui re d to sup port a f ind ing of r ea sona ble 16 effo rts va ry

wit h t he fact s an d c irc um st an ces of t he cas e. Pat ri ci a H. , 20 02 -NMCA17 061, ¶ ¶ 23, 26. A lth oughthe tot al ity of the c irc um st an ce s m ay

be c onsi de re d in 18 es ta bli shi ng r ea sona

ble e ff orts, inc lud ing “ the le ve l of c oope ratio n de m onstrate d by36

1 the pare nt and the r ec al ci tr an ce of the pr obl em s that re nde r the pare nt unable to 2 pr ovi de a de qua te pare nti ng, ” Se ct ion32A -4 -2 8( B) (2 ) re qui re s th e Dep art m en t t o 3 pr ov id e th e par en t w ithar ea sona ble a nd a ppr opr ia te le ve l of

sup port un de r the 4 in di vi du al cir cu msta nc es . Se e Pat ri ci a H. , 200 2- N MC A -0 61, ¶ ¶ 23, 26, 31. T his 5 re qui re s on goi ng e ff

or ts t o e nga ge the pare nt i n aw ay tha t w ill r ea sona

bly e nable the 6 pa re nt t o a dj ust

the c au se s and c ondi tio ns tha t l ed to the ab use a nd n eg le ct of the 7 ch il d. See § 32A-4-28(B)( 2). 8 { 59} In this case, the district court could have concluded that Father w as 9 unc oope rativ e w he n th e D ep ar tm en t i nit ia te d r ea sona

ble e ff orts t o e nga ge him

a nd 10 F a t he r di d n ot res po nd
. Pat ri ci a H. , 2 0 0 2
- N M C A
- 0 6 1 , ¶ 2 3
. I t m u s t b e not ed , 11 how ev er , t ha t par en ta l c oope ratio n is but one c ir cu m stanc e inf

orm ing w he the r the 12 Dep art m en t m ad e rea so na bl e effo rts . Se e id. A la ck of en ga ge m en t on the part of the 13 pa re nt d oe s no t aut ho riz e the D ep ar tm en t t o a

ba ndonit s on goi ng r es pons ibi lity to 14 reac h out to the parent to render a s s i s tance. This w ould be contrary to the statute, 15 under which the D epartm ent m ay be relieved from its statutory responsib ility based 16 o n l y upon a showing that further ef forts would be futile or the child has been 17 su bjec te d t o a gg rav at edcir cu m st an ces . See § 32 A -4 -2 8( B) (2 )( a) -( b) ; se e als o NMS A 18 1978 , § 32 A- 4-29(I) (200 9) (prov iding that the exceptions m ust be proven by

clear37

1 and co n v i ncing evid ence). The De partm ent m ay not circum

vent these statuto ry 2 re qui re m en ts w ithapos tho c cl ai m tha t a pare nt w as unc oope rati ve aft er f ai lin g to 3 m ak e re as ona

ble ef fo rt s in the fi rs t pla ce . A bse nt a fin din g of fut ili ty or a ggr av at ing 4 circum stances, the D epartm ent’ s statuto ry responsibi lity

rem ains in place. 5 { 60} Reasonab l e ef

forts is a m andatory

predicate to the ter

m ination of parental 6 ri ght s, a nd r ef

le ct s a le gis la tiv e de te rm ina tio n th at w he n th er e ar e gr ound s f

or ac hil d 7 to b e ta ke n in to c ust ody , the D ep ar tm en t is requ ir ed

to m ak e ef

fo rt s to a ssi st the 8 pa ren t. See Pat ri ci a H. , 200 2- N MC A -0 61, ¶ 21. Whil e re uni fi ca tio n m ay ult im at el y 9 tur n onapare nt’ s su cc es s intr ea tm en t, it is the D ep ar

tm en t’ s r es pons ibi lity

to ini tiate 10 an d c ont inu al ly

pur sue c om

m uni ca tio n and e ff

orts t o a ssi st the pare nt i n tr eat m en t. 11 See S ec tio n 32 A -4 -2 8( B) (2 ). T he se e ff orts are a c om pone nt o f due p ro ce ss and 12 co ns is te nt wit h t he fun da m en ta l n atur e o f pa ren ta l ri gh ts . Marlene C ., 2011 -N MSC13 005, ¶ 37; se e als o Sant osky , 455 U
. S. a t 74 7, 769
. 14 { 61} Second, “ reasonable eff orts” is an aff

irm ative responsib ility , not a p assive one. 15 T he m aj or ity

im pli es tha t pa ssi ve e ff

orts m ay suf fi ce f or r ea sona ble e ff orts, c iti ng 16 Y odel l B. , 201 6- N MC A -0 29, ¶ 17. I n Yode ll B
. , how ev er , the Co urt of Appe al s 17 co nsi de re d w he the r the re w as sub stanti al e viden ce to s uppo rt af ind ing tha t the 18 De partm ent m ade acti ve ef for ts to ass is t a p aren t. Id

. ¶ 1. “ Ac tive efforts” is an15 Y o d e l l B. , 2016-NMCA-02 9, ¶ 17 (c it in g A. A. v. 1 16 St at e, D ep ’t o f Fa mi ly & Yo uth Se rvs. , 982 P. 2d 256, 17 261 (Alaska 199 9); In r e W elfare of Ch il d o f E. A. C. , 18 812 N.W.2d 165 , 174 (Minn. Ct . App. 2012); In r e A. N. , 19 2005 MT 19, ¶ 23, 325 M o n t. 379, 106 P.3d 556 ; In 20 r e J .S

. , 20 08 Okla. Civ. App. 15, ¶ 16, 177 P
. 3d 5 90) ; but see In 21 re Mich ae l G. , 63 Ca l. App. 4th700 , 714 (1 998) (n oti ng tha t w hil e sta te law did not 2 2 re qu i re “ ac t i v e ef

fo rt s ,” “ [e ]ac h re u n i fi ca t i o n p l an m u s t b e ap p ro p ri at e t o t h e p ar en t ’s 23 ci rc um stanc es . T he plan sh oul d be spe ci fi c an d int er na lly c onsi ste nt, w iththe ove ra ll 24 goal of resum

ption of a f

am ily relationship.” (citation om itted))

.

38 1 independ ent statutory

directive ar ising under the Indian Child W elfar e A ct, 25 U. S. C. 2 § 1912 (d ) (I CWA ). I n Yode ll B
. , the Co urt of Ap pe al s di sti ngui she d “ ac tiv e ef fo rt s” 3 fr om “ passi ve e ff

orts, ” a te rm

oth er state s have use d inc onstru ing the I CWA , a nd 5 4 explained that “ active efforts connot es a m ore involved and less passiv e standard than 5 tha t of re as ona

ble ef fo rt s. ” 2016 -N MC A -0 29, ¶ 20 ( ci tin g In re C.D. , 200 8 U T App 6 477, ¶ 34, 200 P
. 3d 1 94)
. T he Co urt of Appe al s did not co nc lud e tha t pa ssi ve e ff orts 7 are sufficient to fulfill Ne w Me xico’ s reasonable eff orts requirem ent, and thi s Court 8 does not do so here. 9 { 62} N ei the r “ ac tiv e” nor “ pa ssi ve ” ef

fo rt s are the e qui va le n t

o f “ r ea sona ble ” ef fo rt s 10 unde r Se ct ion32A -4 -2 8( B) (2 ). T he se standard s are se parat e an d disti nc t f ro m the 11 requirem ent that the Departm ent m ak e re asonable efforts to assist a parent. By 12 co ntr as t, r ea sona

ble effo rts are ef

fo rt s ta ilo re d to the c ir cu m stanc es of ac as e. A nd 13 under all of these standards, the D epartm ent m ust develop a treatm ent plan directed39

1 to ass is t t he pa ren t i n h is or h er s pe ci fic ci rcu m st an ces an d i nd iv id ua li zed ne ed s. See 2 Y odel l B. , 201 6- N MC A -0 29, ¶ 17. 3 { 63} T hir d, the D ep ar tm en t’ s r es pons ibi lity

to re nde r as sis tanc e doe s no t c ea se 4 be ca use apare nt i s in carc er at ed
. T o the co ntr ar y . T he D ep ar

tm en t m ust r ef ra in f ro m 5 pur sui ng a ter

m ina tio n of pare nta l r igh ts o n th e sol e ba sis tha t a pare nt i s in carc er at ed
. 6 Se ct ion32A -4 -2 8( D ). A s sta te d, Se ct ion 32A -4 -2 8( B) (2 ) re qui re s the D ep ar tm en t t o 7 re nde r ind ivi dua liz ed

sup port. T he re fore, whe n a pare nt i s inj ai l, the D ep ar tm en t 8 m ust do m ore to assist the parent, as the parent i s lim ited in his or h er a bilityto appear 9 at th e Dep art m en t to rece iv e in fo rm at io n a nd su pp or t. Se e, e . g. , Sta te e x re l. Ch ild

re n, 10 Y ou th & Fami li es Dep’ t v. Will ia m M. , 20 07
- N M C A
- 05 5, ¶ ¶ 27 , 68
- 71 , 141 N .M. 11 765, 161 P
. 3d 2 62; H ec tor C
. , 200 8- N MC A -0 79, ¶

26. 12 { 64} Inoth er

c as es inv olv ing inc ar ce rate d pare n t s , th e D e p ar tm e n t h a s d i l i g e n tly

a nd 13 int en tio na lly fu lf

ill ed its re spon sib ili ty by m ai nta ini ng con ta ct w iththe pare nt and the 14 pa re nt’ s c ouns el ; c al lin g and visi tin g the pa re nt in j ai l; br ing ing anint er pr et er to the 15 j ai l t o a ssi st the pare nt i n c om pleti ng a psy ch osoc ia l a sse ssm en t; ar rangi ng v isi ts 16 be tw ee n th e pa re nt and c hil d a t the j ai l; an d f oll ow ing up o n th e pa re nt’ s r eque st t o 17 co m pl et e a h om e st ud y

of r el at iv es who li ve d o ut of s ta te . W il li am M ., 20 07 -NMCA18 055, ¶ ¶ 68- 71; He ctor C. , 200 8- N MC A -0 79, ¶ 26.40

1 { 65} The D epartm ent knew Fa ther w as incarce rated in this case and visited Father 2 in jail in Nov em

be r 20 13
. See m aj
. op. ¶

21. Y et , f

or r ea sons tha t are not

e xpl ai ne d, 3 the Depar

tm ent did no t assist Father w ith his psy chosocial assessm en t at that tim e. 4 Id

. T he D ep art m en t did

not c ont ac t F athe r unt il the f ir st d ay of the te rm ina tio n 5 he ar ing on Augus t 27 , 201 4, an d the psy ch osoc ia l a sse ssm en t r em ai ne d pe ndi ng. See 6 id. ¶¶ 22, 26. A t the hearing, Mr
. Ga czew ski testified that he wa s unaware that Father 7 wa s still in j ail and had been unsu ccessful in locating Father on th e j ail we bsite. See 8 id. ¶ 22. N ot unt il the ne ar ly six th- m onth re ce ss be tw ee n the fi rs t an d se co nd da y s of 9 the te rm ina tio n he ar ing did the Dep ar

tm en t m ai l the psy ch osoc ia l a sse ssm en t t o 10 Fat he r, who co m

pl et edit for th wit h. Id

. ¶ 29. O nly

then did th e D epartm ent proceed 11 to de ve lo p a n i nd iv id ua li zed tre at m en t p la n. Id

. 12 { 66} A lth oughthe pr ec ise da te s of F athe r’ s in carc er at iona re unc lea r fr om the 13 re cord , wh at is c le ar is tha t the D ep ar

tm en t kn ewF athe r w as inc ar ce rate d in 14 N ove m

be r 2013 an d fa ile d to as sis t Fa the r in c om ple tin g th e psy ch osoc ia l a sse ssm en t 15 att ha tt i m e . M a

j
. o p. ¶ 2 1. I n othe r

c a se s, t he D e part m e nt

h a s a ss i st e d i nc a r cera ted 16 pa re nts w ith the psy ch osoc ia l ass es sm en t, an d the D ep ar tm en t of fe re d no e xpl an at ion 17 fo r why i t di d n ot do so in th is cas e. Se e, e . g. , W il li am M. , 200 7- N MC A -0 55, ¶ ¶ 27, 18 69; He ctor C. , 200 8- N MC A -0 79, ¶ 26. T he f ai lur e to d o so w as not

r ea sona ble a nd41

1 le ft to spe cu la tio n ho w F athe r w oul d have oth er w ise pr ogr es se d in tr ea tm en t, 2 particularly

given that he prom

ptly com pleted the psy chosocial a s s es s m ent when 3 pr ovi de d w ithit
. Keo n H. , 201 7- N MC A -0 04, ¶ ¶ 11, 16- 17. 4 { 67} Inc onc lus ion , I a gr ee tha t the tot al ity of the c ir cu m stanc es sup porte d af ind ing 5 tha t the D ep ar

tm en t m ad e re as ona

ble ef fo rt s to a ddr es s th e ca

use s and c ondi tio ns o f 6 ab use a nd ne gle ct . T he D ep ar tm en t i nit ia te d e ff

orts t o e nga ge F athe r an d r en ew ed it s 7 ef fo rt s duri ng the r ec es s be tw ee n th e fi rs t and s ec ond da y of the te rm ina tio n he ar ing
. 8 See m aj op. ¶

29. H ow ev er , I w ri te se pa rate ly to cl ar if y tha t F athe r’ s re ca lc itr an ce did 9 not r el ie ve the D ep ar

tm en t f ro m it s st at uto ry r es po ns ib il it y ; pa ssi ve e ff orts are not 10 re as ona

ble e ff orts under Sec tio n 32 A -4 -2 8( B) (2 ); a nd the D ep ar tm en t sh oul d have 11 done m or e to a ssi st F athe r w hil e he w as inc ar ce rate d.

12

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ _ 13 BARBAR A J. VIGIL, Justice