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

2 O pin ionN um

be r: 3 Fi lin g D at e: A ug us t 20, 201 5 4 N O. 34, 061 5 STATE OF NEW MEXI CO, ex rel ., 6 CHILD REN , Y OUT H & FA MILIES 7 DEP AR TME NT. 8 Petitioner-Appellee, 9 v
. 10 CHRIS TI NA L., 11 Res po nd en t-Ap pe ll an t, 12 an d 13 IN TH E MATTE R OF JUST IN L., 14 Ch ild
. 15 APPEAL FROM THE DI STRI CT COURT OF SANDOVAL COUNTY 16 Joh n F . D avi s, D ist ri ctJu dg e 17 Ch ildre n, Y outh and F am ili es D ep ar tm en t 18 Charles E . N eelley , C hief Children’ s Court Attorney 19 Ke lly P. O’ Ne ill, Children’ s Court Attorney 20 Alb uq ue rque , NM 21 for Appellee1 Law O ffice of G ina M. M aestas

2 Gina M. Maestas 3 Alb uq ue rque , NM 4 fo r Appe llant 5 Sh erri e Lee Tres co tt , Esq
. 6 Ri o R an ch o, NM 7 Guar dian Ad L item1 OPIN ION

2 FR Y, Judge. 3 { 1} Mother appeals the district court’ s judgm ent of adj udication con cluding that 4 he r ch ild

w as ne gle ct ed

on the ba sis of

Mo the r’ s in ab ili ty to care fo r the c hil d du e to 5 a m ental disorder or incapacity . O n appeal, Mother argues th at the evidence w as 6 ins uf fi ci en t t o su

ppor t this co nc lusionbe ca

use no e vid en ce of

apsy ch olo gic al or 7 m edical diagno sis of m ental disorder or incapacity wa s presented. W e conclude that 8 the district c ourt’ s finding s do not supp ort a determ ination that Child was neglected 9 pursuant to NMS A 1978, § 32A-4-2( E) (4) (2009). A ccordingly , w e re verse. 10 BACKGRO UND 11 { 2} This is Mother’ s second appeal of a j udgm ent of adj udication concludin g that 12 Child is neg lected. Child was initially taken into the Children, Y outh , and Fam ilies 13 De partm ent’ s (CY FD ) custody in 2009 based on allegation s that dom estic violence 14 tow ar d Mothe r w as takin g pl ac e in the hom e. I n th e fi rs t c as e, the dis tr ic t c ourt f ound 15 that C hil d w as ne gle ct ed a nd a buse d pu rs ua nt t o S ec tio n 32 A -4 -2 (B )( 1) , ( 4) , a nd 16 (E )( 2) ( “ [A ] buse d c hil d m eans a c hil d .
. . w ho h as suf

fe re d or w ho i s a t r isk

of 17 suffering serious harm because of the action or inaction of the child’s par ent, guardian 1 8 o r c u s t o d i a n . . . [ o r ] w h o s e p a r e n t , g u a r d i a n o r c u s t o d i a n h a s kn o w i n g l y, 19 int en tio na lly

or ne gli ge ntl y

pl aced th e chi ld i n asit ua tio n th at

m ay e ndange r the2

1 ch ild ’ s li fe or

he al th.
. . . [A] ‘neg le ct ed ch ild ’ m eans a c hil d .
. . w ho i s w ith out 2 p r o p e r p a r e n t a l c a r e a n dc o n t r o l o r s ub s i s t e n c e , e du c a t i o n , m e d i c a l o r o t h e r c a r e or 3 co ntr ol n ec es sary

f or the c hil d’ s w el l- be ing beca use of the f au lts or ha bit s of the 4 child’s par ent, guardian or custodian or the failure or r efusal of the pare nt, guardian 5 or c ust odi an , w he n a

ble to do so, to pr ovi de the m [. ] ”)
. I n M oth er ’ s a ppe al in the f

ir st 6 ca se , thi s Court conc lud ed that the dis tr ic t cour t abus ed its dis cr et ion in a dm itt ing 911 7 dispatch logs and that withou t these logs th ere wa s insu fficient evidence to support 8 th e d is tri ctco ur t’s co nc lu si on th atCh il d was ab us edor n eg le ct ed
. Sta te e x re l. 9 Ch il dr en , Y

ou th & Fami li es Dep’ t, N o. 31, 151, m em . op. 2, 10 (N
. M. Ct
. App. S ep t. 10 18, 201 2) (n on- pr ec ed en tia l)
. W e re m an de d the ca se to the dis tr ic t c ourt t o de te rm ine 11 whe th er Mo th er s ho ul d re ga in cu st od y of C hi ld
. Id

. at 12. 12 { 3} O n r em an d, the dis tr ic t c ourt a dopt ed ape rm an en cy

plan f or r euni fic at ion
. 13 Mot h er p ar t icipated with CY FD in the reunification plan ov er the next severa l 14 m onth s; however, CY FD subsequ ently filed a m otion for leave to file a supplem ental 1 5 ab u s e a n d n e g l e c t p e t i t i o n o n t h e b a s i s o f S e c t i o n 3 2 A
- 4
- 2 ( E ) ( 4 ) ( s t a t i n g t h atone 16 ba sis of

de te rm ini ng tha t a

c hil d is ne gle ct ed

is w he n th e “ pare nt, gu ard ia n or 1 7 cu sto d i a n i s u n ab l e t o d i s c h a r g e t h a t p e r s o n ’ s r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s t o a n d f o r t he c hil d 18 be ca use of inc ar ce ratio n, hos pit al iz at ionor phy sic al or

m en ta l di sor de r or 19 incapacity ”). In suppo rt o f CY FD ’ s allegation that Mot her suffer s from a m ental3

1 disorder or incapacity , C FY D stated that Moth er had subm itted to a “ m ind m ap 2 as se ssm en t” by

D r. Cr ai g P ie rc e, apsy ch olo gis t. T he pe tit ion al le ge d that the m ind 3 m ap de te rm ine d Mothe r’ s m en ta l c ap ac ity to be f unc tio na lly

e qui va le nt t o an e igh t4 to ten-y ear- old ch i l d. CY FD m oved to con solid ate the tw o cases. Although the district 5 court did not specifically rule on this m otion , an adjudicatory hearing wa s scheduled 6 t o d et er m i n e w h et h erCh i l dwa s n eg l ec t ed p u rs u an tt o t h e a l l eg at i o n s i n CY FD ’s 7 supp le m en ta l pe tit ion
. 8 { 4} A t the he ar ing , D r. P ie rc e w as qua lif ie d a s an e xp ert in ch ild a nd f am ily 9 psy ch olo gy . D r. P ie rc e de sc ri be d th e m ind m ap as a non- dia gnos tic the ra pe uti c too l 10 to assess an ind ividu al’ s developm ental histo ry . D r. Pierc e described the process as 1 1 “ re l at i v el y s i m

p l e ” an di n cl u d es g at h er i n g i n fo rmat i o n re g ar d i n g th e i n d i v i du al ’s 1 2 fa m i l y h i s t o ry an dad v er s e ch i l d h o o d ev en t s t h at m ay h av e imp ac t ed th e i n d i v i du al ’s 13 br ai n de ve lop m en t. D r. P ie rc e te sti fied th at the m ind m ap r el ie s onanin e- pa ge 14 questio nnaire to gather this inform ation. H e further testified that the m ind m ap uses 15 thi s se lf

-r ep orte d in fo rm at ionto ev al ua te c ogni tiv e an d re la tio na l br ai n de ve lop m en t, 16 as w el l a s se nsor

y int eg ratio n and s el f- re gul at ion , a nd c om pare s th e re sul ts i n th ose 17 categories to “ age ty

pical” re sults . D r. Pierc e testi fied th at Mo ther’ s results sho we d 18 her to be in the fortieth perce ntile for p eople her age. Dr. Pierc e concluded that, based 19 on the m ind m ap, Mother’ s brain developm ent in the area s covered by the m ind m ap4

1 w er e “ sig nif

ic an tly c om pr om ise d” a nd tha t sh e functio ne d m en ta lly a t a low er a ge 2 range to co m

para bly a ge d a dul ts. D r. P ie rc e te sti fi ed that, base d onthe r es ult s, 3 Mother’ s ability to par ent a sm all child w as affe cted by her lim itations , such a s her 4 ab ili ty to ex er ci se so un d jud gm en t and p ri or iti ze the ne ed s of Ch ild
. O n c ro ss5 ex am inatio n, how ev er , D r. P ie rc e cl ar if ie d that the pur

pose of the m ind

m ap w as to 6 direct therapy

and assist Moth er in lear

ning parenting skil ls, not to diagno se a m ental 7 d i s o rd ero r c o n d i t i o n o r t o ac tas a s t an d ar d i ze d t es t fo r d et er m i n i n g an i n d i v i du al ’s 8 int el lig en ce , suc h a s an I Q te st. 9 { 5} Child’s ther apist, Bre nda Lee , a lso testified at the hearing. L ee testified that 10 w hil e Mothe r show ed apti tud e in l earni ng ab out Ch ild ’ s vari ous m en ta l di ag nose s, 11 Le e wa s frustrated by Mother’ s resistance to the “ understandi ng tra inin g ” Lee 12 atte m pte d to im

part . Lee te st ifie d th at

Mo the r atte m

pte d to spe ak

se cr et ly to Ch ild 1 3 du ri n g s up er v i s ed v i s i t s d es p i t e CYF D’s i n s t ru ct i o n t o M o t h er n o tt o d i s cu s s Ch i l d ’s 14 fo ste r sit

ua tio n wi th Chi ld. L ee te sti fi ed that Moth er ’ s visit s inci te d Chil d to e xhi bit 15 reac t i ve be havi or s w he n he r e tur ne d t o hi s f

os t e r par e nt s. L e e a l so t e st i f i e d that 16 Mo th er t hr eat en edhe r on on e o ccas io n. 17 { 6} T es tim ony

by CY FD rep re se ntativ es e ch oe d L ee ’ s te sti m ony . O ne 18 representative testified that, althoug h Mother was e ager to m eet w ith CYFD 19 re pr es en ta tiv es , she ha d di ff ic ulty ac ce pti ng co nstru ct ive fe ed ba ck an d fo cu sin g on5

1 tr eatm en t go als. Mo the r al so w ith dr ewdur ing m ee tin gs whe re she dis ag re ed w ith 2 dis c us si on s. M ot

he r be c a m e r e si st a nt t o f ur t he r tr a i ni ng by L e e a f

t e r she w as 3 ins tr uc te d onthe r es ult s of

the m ind m ap . 4 { 7} Sharon Blackwell, a CY FD repre sentative, further testified regar ding her 5 concerns arising from

a hom e assessm ent at Mother’ s residence. Blackw ell noted th at 6 at the tim e of the visit, she observed that Mother had five dogs and a num ber of pet 7 rats living at the residence. S he testified that due to these anim als, the hom e sm elled 8 of urine or fe ces. Blackw ell also noted ov erfl owing trash cans and general clutter 9 through out th e hom e. Blackw ell also expressed concern for the way in which Mother 10 st or edhe r m ed ic at io ns an d t he pre se nc e o f al co ho l s to redne ar Mo th er’s b ed
. 11 { 8} Mothe r al so t es tif ie d a t the he ar ing
. P er

tin en t t o her test im ony

w as the 12 intro duc tio n of

c er tif ic at es sho w ing Mo the r’ s su cc es sf ul co m pl etionof

vari ous 13 parenting classes, including certificates aw arded by Le e. 14 { 9} Finally , a lthou gh psy cholog ical evaluations of Mother we re perform ed by Dr
. 15 Christoph er A lexander and Dr . N esha Morse, neither w as called to testify . ACY FD 16 re pr es entati ve was q ue st io ne d re ga rd in g t he fin di ng s o f th e p sycho lo gi cal e va luatio ns 17 but c oul d no t r ec al l the r es ult s. Re ports o f the e va luatio ns w er e not oth er w ise 18 in tro du cedin to ev id en ce. 19 { 10} At the c onclusi on of the heari ng, the district court concluded th at Child was6

1 neglected pursuant to Sec tion 32A-4- 2(E) (4). In issui ng its ruling, the district court 2 m ad e re pe at ed

state m en ts t o th e ef

fe ct that Moth er w as a “ br igh t w om an , ” “ ca pable 3 of le ar nin g an d m as te ri ng inf

orm at ion , ” an d th at

she pos se sse d an “ int el le ct ua l a bil ity 4 t h at s ee m s t o h o l dp ro m i s e. ” T h e d i s t ri ct c o u r t c o n c l u d ed , h o we v er , t h at Mo t h er ’s 5 defiance tow ard CY FD evid enced an inability to safely parent Child. T he district 6 c o u rte qu a t e dM o t h e r ’s d e f i a n c e w i t h a l a c k o f

ju d g men ta n dwi t h men t a l i n c ap a c i t y. 7 T he dis tr ic t c ourt foun d that Mothe r w as unw ill ing to ac ce pt tr ai nin g fr om CY FD f or 8 the be nefi t of

Ch ild but w as ins te ad

ins ist en t onvin dic tiv el y a ct ing out

a ga ins t 9 CY FD
. A cc or din gly , the dis tr ic t c ourt c onc lud ed th at th e evi de nc e w as c le ar a nd 10 co nvinc ing und er

S ec tio n 32 A -4 -2 (E )( 4) that C hil d w as ne gle ct ed
. Mo the r ap pe al s 11 thi s de te rm inatio n. 12 DISC US SION 13 Stand ard of R eview 14 { 11} “ To m eet the standard o f p ro o f i n an abuse or neglect proceeding, the fa ct 15 finder m

ust be presented with clear and convin cing evidence that the child was 16 abused or neglected.” State ex rel. Children, Yo uth & Fam ilies Dep’t v . Shawna C. , 17 2005 -N MC A -0 66, ¶

7, 137 N.M. 6 87 , 1 14 P
. 3d 3 67. “ Fo r ev ide nc e to b e cl ear an d 18 co nvi nc ing , it

m ust ins tantl y ti lt the sc al es in the a ff

irm at ive w he n w ei ghe d a ga ins t 19 the e vid en ce in oppo sit iona nd the f ac t f ind er ’ s m ind

is le ft w itha n a

bid ing7

1 convictio n that the evidence is true.” Id

. ( int er na l qu otatio n m ar

ks and c itatio n 2 om itt ed ). “ W e em

plo y anarr owstandar d of r ev ie wa nd d o no t r e- w ei gh the 3 evidence.” St at e ex r el . Chi ld re n, Y o u t h & Fami li es Dep’ t v. Ama nd a H. , 200 7- 4 N MC A -0 29, ¶

19, 141 N
. M. 299 , 15 4 P. 3d 6 74. I nst ea d, “ w e re vie wto de te rm ine 5 w he the r, vie w ing the e vid en ce in the li ght m ost f av or ab le to the pr ev ai lin g party , the 6 fact f inder could prop erly

determ ine that the clear and convin cing evidence standard 7 wa s m et.” Id

. 8 { 12} T o th e ex te nt M oth er ’ s arg um en ts r equir e int er pr et at ionof

S ec tio n 32 A -4
- 9 2( E)(4 ) , w e r e vi ew su ch arg um en ts de no vo . In re M ahdj id B. , 201 5- N MS C- 003, 10 ¶ 12, 342 P. 3d 69 8 (“ Statutory interpretation is a q uestion of l aw , which we r eview 11 de novo .” (internal quotation m arks and citation om itted)). 12 Se ct ion 32A -4 -2 (E )( 4) 13 { 13} W e be ginw ithMo the r’ s arg um en t tha t the re w as ins uf fi ci en t e vid en ce to 14 supp ort the dis tr ic t c ourt’ s co nc lus ion that Ch ild w as ne gle ct ed und er S ec tio n 32 A -4
- 15 2(E) (4) beca

use the district court m ade no find i n g s suppo rting a conclusio n that 16 Mothe r suf

fers fro m a m en ta l di sor de r or inc ap ac ity
. Mo the r hig hli ght s st at em en ts 17 m ad e by

the dis tr ic t c ourt duri ng its r uli ng i ndi catin g th at

Mo the r w as m en ta lly 1 8 capab l e . M o t h e r a r g u e s t h a t t h e d i s t r i c t c o u rt e rr e d i n e qu a t i n g M o t h e r ’ s de fi an t 1 9 a t t i tu d e t o w a r dC Y F D wi t h amen t a l d i s o r d e r o r i n c ap a c i t y.8

1 { 14} Se ct ion32A -4 -2 (E )( 4) de fi ne s ane gle ct ed ch ild a s on e “ w hose pare nt, 2 guard ian or

c ust odi anis una

ble to dis ch ar ge that pe rs on’ s r es pons ibi lit ie s to and f or 3 the child because of [a]
. . . m ental disorder or incapacity[. ]” This section requires 4 proof by clear and convin cing e vidence that the indiv idual suffe rs from a me ntal 5 di s o r d e r o r i n c ap a c i t y a n d t h a t s u c h m e n t a l d i s o r d e r o r i n c ap a c i t y “ r e n d e r[ s] the 6 parent unable to provide proper parental car e or discharge his or her r espons ibiliti es 7 to the child.” Aman da H. , 200 7- N MC A -0 29, ¶ 25; See Section 32A-4-2(E )(4). 8 { 15} The ter m s “ m en ta l d is or de r” an d “ m en ta l in cap aci ty” as us ed in Sect io n 3 2A9 4- 2( E )( 4) have not

be enspe ci fi ca lly

c onstru ed
. I n c onstru ing thi s pr o v i s i o n , “ w e m ust 10 ascerta in and give effe ct to the intentio n of t h e L egislature.” Sta ng v . H er tz Co rp. , 11 1969 -N MC A -1 18, ¶ 17, 81 N
. M. 69, 463 P. 2d 45. “ [T ] he pla in l an gua ge of astatut e 12 is the prim ary indicator of legislative intent .” H igh R idg e H

ink le J oin t V en tur e v. Ci ty 13 of A lbu que rque , 1998-NMS C- 050, ¶ 5, 126 N.M. 413, 970 P.2d 599 (internal 14 quot at ionm ar

ks an d ci ta tio n om itt ed ). Furthe rm or e, w e co nsi de r the langua ge of the 15 statut e as aw hol e an d c onstru e it “ so that no w or d and n o par t of th e st atute is 16 rendered surplusage or superfluous.” Sta ng , 196 9- N MC A -1 18, ¶ 17. 17 { 16} In ac co rd an ce w ith the se pr inc ipl es , tw o point s ar e re ad ily ap pare nt. F ir st, the 18 L eg isl at

ur e int en de d the co ndi tio ns list ed unde r Se ct ion32A -4 -2 (E )( 4) to be gr ound s 19 fo r ad j udi catin g a chil d negl ec te d disti nc t fr om tho se f ound in Se ct ion32A -4 -2 (E )( 2)9

1 (stating that a “ neglected child m eans a child .
. . who is w ithou t proper parental car e 2 an d c ontro l or

sub sis te nc e, e duc at ion , m ed ic al or oth er care or co ntr ol n ec es sary f or 3 the child’s w ell-being because of the faults or habits of t he child’s par ent, guardian 4 or cu sto dian or

the f ai lur e or r ef usa l of the pare nt, guard ian or

c ust odi an , w he n a

ble 5 to d o so , to pro vid e the m ”)
. Se co nd, the L eg isl at ur e int en de d m en ta l i nc ap ac ity to be 6 a separate conditio n from m ental disorder. 7 { 17} In fi rs t co nsi de ri ng the dis tin ct ion be tw ee n Se ct ion 32A -4 -2 (E )( 2) a nd 3 2A -4
- 8 2( E )( 4) , the dis tin gui shi ng f eatur e unde r Se ct io n 32 A -4 -2 (E )( 4) is the r equir em en t 9 that C YFD e stablish by clear and convin cing evidence that one of the listed 1 0 co n d i t i o n s
— s u ch as a men t al d i s o rd ero r i n cap ac i t y—i s th e c au s e o f t h e p ar en t ’s 11 in ab il it y

to di sc ha rg e h is or h er re sp on si bi li ti es to th e ch il d. Se e Aman da H. , 200 7- 12 N MC A -0 29, ¶

25 ( statin g th at

e sta bli shi ng o ne of the c ondi tio ns l ist ed in Se ct ion 13 32A -4 -2 (E )( 4) is ins uf fi ci en t to supp ort ana dj udi catio n th at the c hil d is ne gle ct ed

but 14 m ust ins tead be th e reason the parent i s unable to discharge his or her responsibi lities 1 5 t o th e ch i l d ). In co n t ra s t , u n d er Se ct i o n 3 2 A- 4 -2 (E )( 2 ) i ti s s u ff i ci en tth at th e p ar en t ’s 16 fai lu re t o c are f

orth e ch il d’s wel l-b ei ng is a res ul t “ of th e fau lt s or hab it s of the
. . . 17 pare nt. ” T his pr ovi sio n, a s op pose d to S ec tio n 32 A -4 -2 (E )( 4) , r equir es c ulp ab ili ty on 18 th e p artof t he pa ren t. See Shawna C. , 200 5- N MC A -0 66, ¶ 29; se e a ls o Ama nd

a H. , 19 2007 -N MCA -029, ¶ 21 (“ To properly find that [t he c] hild was neglected under10

1 [S ec tio n 32 A -4 -2 (E )( 2) ] , the dis tr ic t co urt m ust have be en pr es en te d w ithc le ar a nd 2 co nvi nc ing e viden ce of Mo the r’ s c ulp ab ili ty

thr oughint en tio na l or

ne gli ge nt 3 dis re gard

of [ the c ] hil d’ s w el l- be ing a nd p ro p e r n e e d s. ”)
. T hus, w he n C Y FD pr oc ee ds 4 unde r Se ct ion32A -4 -2 (E )( 4) , it is not r equi red to pr ove c ulp ab le be ha vio r of the 5 parent, but it also c annot re ly on e vidence of the parent’ s negli g en t o r in tention al 6 disregard of the child’s needs. Instead, CYF D m ust establish the “ status” that m akes 7 the ind ivi dua l un ab le to d is ch ar ge his or he r pare nta l r es pons ibi lit ie s and s howthe 8 co nn ect io n b et ween t h a t s t a t us an d t he ne gl ector abu se . See Shawna C. , 200 5- 9 N MC A -0 66, ¶ 2 9; se e als o A m anda H , 200 7- N MC A -0 29, ¶

25 ( “ T he unf

av or ab le 10 pe rs ona l st at

us o f the pare nt . . . is re le vant o nly to the e xte nt tha t i t pr om pts e ith er the 11 harm s de fi ne d a s a

buse , or the ne gle ct . ” (i nte rn al quo ta tio n m ar ks and c itatio n 12 om itted)). 13 { 18} Se co nd, the pla in m eanin g of the t er m s “ m en ta l di sor de r or

inc ap ac ity ” in 14 Se ct ion32A -4 -2 (E )( 4) ind ic at es that the L eg isl at ur e int en de d th es e te rm s to r ef er to 15 tw o se parate c ondi tio ns. I n Shawna C. , this Court noted th at the statute wa s am ended 16 in 1 987 to i nc lud e the w or d “ dis or de r” to cl ar if y “ the c ir cum stanc es in w hic h a 17 pare nt’ s in ab ili ty

to func tio n a s a pare nt w oul d c onst itu te ne gle ct w ith out asho w ing 18 of c ulp ab ili ty . ” 2005 -N MC A -0 66, ¶ 35. W e be lie ve the pur

pose of thi s am en dm en t 19 w as to cl ar if

y that m enta l i lln es s w as a n in cl ude d “ status ” unde r Se ct ion32A -4
-11

1 2( E)(4 ). In th is reg ard , Black’ s Law D ictiona ry 1135 (10th ed. 2014) defines “ m ental 2 dis or de r” a nd “ m en ta l ill ne ss” sy nony m ousl y . Me nta l i lln es s is de fi ne d a s e vid en ci ng 3 “ a disorder i n t h o u g h t or m ood so subst antial that it im pairs j udgm ent, behavior, 4 pe rc ep tio ns o f re al ity , or the abil ity

to co pe w iththe or din ar

y de m an ds o f lif

e. ” T his 5 de fi nit ionc om

ports w ith th e defi nit ionof m en ta l di sor de r use d e lse w he re in our 6 st atut es . See N MS A 197 8, § 43 -1 -3 (O ) (2 013) ( defi ni ng m en ta l di sor de r as the 7 “ subs tantial diso rder of a person’ s em otion al processes, thou ght or cogn ition that 8 gr ossly im

pa ir s j udgm en t, be ha vio r or c ap ac ity to re co gni ze r ea lity , but doe s no t 9 m ean de ve lo pm en ta l d is ab il it [ie s]”). 10 { 19} T he te rm

“ inc ap ac ity , ” on the oth er hand, is de fi ne d in B lac k’ s L awD ic tio nary 11 87 8 (1 0t h e d. 2 01 4) as a “ [l]ack of ph y si cal or m en ta l cap ab il it ie s.” In th is cas e, we 12 ar e co nc er

ne d w ithm en ta l c ap ab ili tie s. I n State ex r el . Health & Social Services 13 De p a r t me nt v. N

atura l Father , th i s C o u rts t a t e dth a t“ ac h i l di s n e g l e c t e di f the 14 pare nts la ck

the m en ta l c ap acity t o prov ide the c ar e or c ontro l ne ce ssary

f or the 15 ch ild ’ s w el l- be ing
. ” 1979 -N MC A -0 90, ¶ 9, 93 N
. M. 222 , 598 P
. 2d 1 182. Co nsi ste nt 16 w ith Black’

s Law D ictiona ry an d Natura l Father , our pr oba te c ode , in the c ont ex t of 17 the parent/child relation ship, defines “ incapacity ” as the “ inabilit y of an individ ual 18 to fun c t i on a s a par e nt of a c hi l d be c aus e of t he i nd i vi du a l ’ s ph y si c a l or m ental 19 co ndi tio n[
. ] ” N MS A 197 8, § 45 -2 -1 15( H ) (2 011)
. I n c onstru ing asim ilar te rm , the12

1 N eb ra ska

S upr em e Co urt di sti ngui she d “ m en ta l de fi ci en cy ” fr om “ m en ta l i lln es s” in 2 de fi nin g m en ta l de fi ci en cy a s “ anim

pa irm en t in le ar

nin g c ap ac ity

suc h th at one is 3 un ab le to pro fit fro m

in st ru ct io n a nd acq ui re p aren ti ng sk il ls .”). In re D

. L. S. , 432 4 N
. W
. 2d 3 1, 38 (N eb
. 1988 ) (i nte rn al quot at ionm ar ks and c itatio n om itt ed )
. T ak ing 5 these definition s into con sideration, w e believe that the Le gislature intended m ental 6 incapacity

to encom

pass tho se circum stances in which an individ ual, due to an 7 intellectual disabil ity , i s unable, as opposed to unwilling, to discharge his or her 8 re spon sib ili tie s to the c hil d. 9 { 20} T ur

nin g to the dis tr ic t c ourt’ s dec isi on i n th is c as e, w e de te rm ine that the 10 distr i ct co urt’ s finding s did no t supp ort a conclusion th at Child was neglected 11 pur suant t o S ec tio n 32 A -4 -2 (E )( 4)
. T he dis tr ic t co urt en te re d no w ri tte n fi ndi ngs of 12 fact. W e theref

ore consider its statem ents at the conclusio n of the hearing to clarify 13 th e b as is of i ts de ci si on . Se e Le dbe tt erv. W eb b , 1985-NMS C-112, ¶ 36, 103 N. M. 14 597, 711 P.2d 874 (indicating that th e d istrict court’ s verbal com m ents can be used 15 to clarify

ruling). T he district court did no t m ake any finding th at Mother suffer ed 16 from a m ental disorder or illness. Nor did it find th at Mother suffer ed from m ental 17 inc ap ac ity
. T he dis tr ic t c ourt e xpl ic itl y state d th at

Mo the r w as “ ca

pable of le ar nin g 18 an d m as te ri ng inf

o” an d that she w as a “ br igh t wo m an ” w ho s how ed a“ ca pa ci ty to 19 le ar n. ” W e unde rs tand the se fi ndi ngs to b e in d ir ec t c ontra dic tio n to ade te rm inatio n13

1 that Mother lacked the intellectual capacity to “ profit from i n s t ru ct ion and acquire 2 parenting skil ls.” D

. L. S. , 432 N
. W
. 2d at 38
.14

1 { 21} Furtherm ore, t h e d et er m i n at i v e fa ct o r i n the district court’ s decision wa s 2 Mother’ s defiant attitude toward CY FD . T estim ony at th e h earing indicated that 3 Mother display ed an unwillingn ess to accept fe edback and instructio n from CY FD 4 with w hich she disagree d and that this dy nam ic grewworse after

Mother w as given 5 t h e r es u l t s o f t h e m i n d m ap as s es s m en t . W h i l e t h e d i s t ri ct co u rt s t at ed th at Mo t h er ’s 6 de fi an t att it ude w as a ff ec tin g he r ab ili ty

to re co gni ze the c ondi tio ns s he ne ed ed to 7 im pr ove in or de r to sa fel y

pare nt C hil d, w e co nc lud e that su chf ind ing s m ay

be 8 re le vant t o establ ish ing that the f au lts a nd h ab its of

Mo the r re nde r he r unw ill ing to 9 pr ovi de pr ope r pare nta l care unde r Se ct ion 32A -4 -2 (E )( 2) , but the y ar e not suf fi ci en t 10 to sh ow t ha t Ch il d i s n eg le ct edun de r Sec ti on 32 A-4 -2 (E)(4 ). Sta te d a no th er way, we 11 are unprepared to co n cl u d e th at evidence of a defiant attitude toward CY FD 12 co nst itu te s am en ta l di sord er or inc ap ac ity und er the Abuse a nd N eg le ct A ct . 13 Ac cordingly , the district co u rt erre d in conclud ing th at CY FD established byclear 1 4 and convin cing ev i d en ce th at Ch i l dwa s n eg l ec t ed p u rs u an tt o Se ct i o n 3 2 A- 4 -2 (E )(4). 15 Dr . P ierce’ s Testim ony 16 { 22} Whil e the part ie s’ br ie fi ng lar ge ly fo cu se d on D r. P ie rc e’ s te sti m ony r eg ar din g 17 Mothe r’ s m ind

m ap a nd whe the r, a s age ne ra l m atte r, e xpe rt te sti m ony

is re qui re d to 18 establish th e existence of a m ental d isorder or incapacity sufficient to adj udicate a 19 child neglected und er S ection 3 2 A- 4-2(E) (4), we need not address it. T he district15

1 co urt’ s c om

m en ts d id n ot s ugge st any r el ianc e on Dr. Pi er ce ’ s te sti m ony , a nd the 2 co urt’ s ve rb al f

ind ing s re gard ing Mothe r’ s de fi an ce of CY FD w er e not sup porte d by 3 D r. P ie rc e’ s te sti m ony . I nde ed , D r. Pierc e te sti fi ed that the m ind

m ap w as not

a 4 d i agnosti c tool. While we acknowledge that there m ay be cases in w hich expert 5 te st im on y

is no t re qu ire d, cf

. R ic hte r v . Presby te ria n H ea lth ca re Se rv

s. , 201 4- 6 N MC A -0 56, ¶

19, 326 P. 3d 50 (n oti ng that in som e ins tanc es expe rt te sti m ony is n ot 7 r e qu i r e dt o p r o v e in st an ces of m ed ic al ne gl ig en ce), ce rt . denied , 2 014- N MC E RT -0 05, 8 326 P.3d 11 11, w e obse rv e that i t i s un lik el y that a f ind ing of ne gle ct und er the 9 “ m ental disorder or incapacity ” elem ent of Sec tion 3 2A-4-2(E )(4) c ouldbe sustained 10 by a nythi ng o the r th an a di agnosi s su ppor te d by the e vid en tiary

r el ia bil ity of the 11 un de rlyin g s ci en t i f

ic kn owl ed ge . See State v. Torres , 199 9- N MS C- 010, ¶ 24, 127 12 N
. M. 20, 976 P
. 2d 2 0 ( expla ini ng tha t “ it is e rr or to adm it expe rt

te sti m ony

inv olv ing 13 sc ie nti fi c know le dge unl es s th e party of fe ri ng suc h te sti m ony

f ir st e sta bli she s th e 14 ev ide nti ar

y r el ia bil ity of the sc ie nt if

ic kno w le dge ”)
. A cc or din gly , to the e xte nt the 15 district court’ s order can be construed as rely ing on Dr . P ierce ’ s opin ion th at Mother 16 func tio ns at a

low er c ogni tiv e ab ili ty , we do not be lie ve thi s op ini on w as pr ope rl y 17 supp orte d.16

1 CON CLU SION 2 { 23} Fo r the f

or eg oin g r ea sons , w e re ve rs e the dis tr ic t c ourt’ s j udgm en t of 3 ad jud ic at io n a nd rem an d fo r pr oc eed in gs co ns is te nt wit h t hi s Op in io n. 4 { 24} IT IS S O ORDERE D.
5

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ __ 6 C Y N TH IAA . F R Y , Ju dg e 7 WE CO NCUR:
8

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ __ 9 M IC HA EL E. V IG IL , C hi ef Ju dg e
10

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ __ 11 M . M ON IC A Z A M OR A , Ju dg e