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: O ct ob er 11, 201 7 4 N o. A -1 -C A -3 5903 5 ST A TE OF N EWM EX IC O e x r el . 6 CHILD REN , Y OUT H A ND FA MILIES 7 DEP AR TME NT, 8 Petitioner-Appellee, 9 v
. 10 MICH AEL H., 11 Re spon de nt- Appe llant, 12 an d 13 IN TH E MATTE R OF JAYDA’MAE S., 14 Ch ild

. 15 AP PE AL FR OM T HE D ISTRICT C OUR T OF GU AD ALU PE CO UN TY 16 M at th ew J. S an do val , D ist ri ctJu dg e 17 Ch ildre n, Y outh & F am ili es D ep ar tm en t 18 Charles E . N eelley , C hief Children’ s Court Attorney 19 Rebecc a J. Liggett, C hildren’ s Court Attorney 20 San ta Fe, NM 21 for Appellee1 Law O ffice s of Nancy L. Sim m ons, P. C. 2 N an cy L
. S im m ons 3 Albuquerque, N M 4 fo r Appe llant 5 A rthur L
. Bu sto s 6 Las Veg as , NM 7 Guar dian Ad L item1 OPIN ION

2 BOHN HOF F, Judge. 3 { 1} T he dis tr ic t c ourt r ule d th at Appe llant M ic ha el H
. ( Fa the r) ha d ne gle ct ed his 4 child (Ch i l d ) by

abandonin g her. Father argues that his lack of kno wledge that 5 Child’s m other, G ina S. (Mother), who had custodyof th e infant, would neglect her 6 an d a lso his la ck

of c er ta in k no wled ge thr oughD N A te sti ng tha t he in fa ct w as the 7 fathe r of Ch ild ne ga te an y co nc lus ion of ab an donm en t unde r N MS A 197 8, S ec tio n 8 32A -4 -2 (A )( 2) ( 2009 , a s a m en de d 20 16 and 2 017) , a nd thus ne gle ct und er S ec tio n 9 32A-4-2(F) (1) (c urrent version at Sec tion 3 2A-4-2(G )(1)) . W e re j ect Fa t h er ’s 1 0 a r g u me n t s , a n dt h e r e f o r e a f f i rm. 11 BACKGRO UND 12 { 2} Child w as born in March 2015
. The Ne w Mexico Children, Y outh and Fam ilies 13 De partm ent (CY FD ) took Child into custo dy on April 11, 2016
. CYF D then f iled an 14 ab use /ne gle ct

pe tit ion on Ap ri l 13, 2016 na m ing Mothe r an d F athe r as r es pond en ts, 15 an d C ar los G
. ( H usband) a s an in te re ste d party . Ba se d oninf orm at ionpr ovi de d by 16 Mother, C YF D a lleged that Father is the biolog ical fa ther of Child and that Mother 17 ha d no t be en in a re la tio nshi p or ha d c ont ac t w ithF athe r sin ce she w as one m onth 18 pr eg na nt w ithCh ild

. T he pe tit io n a lle ge d th at F athe r ab use d C hil d a s de fi ne d in 19 Se ct ion32A -4 -2 (B )( 1) ( one “ w ho h as suf fe re d or w ho i s at ri sk of suf

fe ri ng s er iou s2

1 harm because of the action or inaction of the child’s parent, guardian or custod ian”) 2 an d S e c t i o n3 2 A

- 4

- 2 ( B ) ( 4 ) ( o n e “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, 3 int en tio na lly

or ne gli ge ntly pl aced the c hil d inasit ua tio n th at

m ay e ndange r the 4 child’s life or health”). The petition also alleged tha t Fath er neglected C hild as 5 d ef i n ed i n Se ct i o n 3 2 A- 4 -2 (F )( 1 ) ( o n e “w h o h as b ee n ab an d o n ed b y t h e c h i l d ’s 6 pa re nt, gu ardi anor

c ust odi an ”) a nd S ec tio n 32 A -4 -2 (F )( 2) ( one “ w ho i s w ith out 7 pr ope r pa re nta l c ar e an d c ontro l or sub sis te nc e, e duc at ion , m ed ic al or oth er c ar e or 8 co ntr ol n ec es sa ry

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 9 child’s par ent, guardian or custodian or the failure or r efusal of the pare nt, guardian 10 or custodian, when able to do so, to provide them ”). 11 { 3} T he dis tr ic t co urt en te re d asti pul at ed or de r fo r D N A te sti ng o n M ay 18, 201 6. 12 On June 2, 2016, Mother enter ed a no c ontest plea to the allegation th at she neglected 1 3 Ch i l du n d erSe ct i o n 3 2 A- 4 -2 (F )( 2 ). Th e d i s t ri ct co u rt t h en co n du ct ed Fa t h er ’s 14 ad j udi ca tio n he ar ing on July 7, 2016 , dur ing w hic h th e fo llo w ing w itn es se s te sti fi ed : 15 Mothe r; A m

be r Mart ine z, the CYFD pe rm an en cy planni ng w orke r fo r Ch ild ; and 16 Father. 17 I. Mothe r’s Te stim ony 18 { 4} Mother testified that she had j ust ended a relations hip with ano ther m an when 19 she be ga n ase xua l r el at ion shi p w ithF athe r. Mo the r te sti fi ed tha t sh e did

not li ve w ith3

1 Father and that sh e did not h ave any re l at i o n ship with him other than a sexual one. 2 Whe n M oth er

dis co ve re d sh e w as pr eg na nt, she im m ed ia te ly ide nti fi ed

F athe r as the 3 fathe r of

Ch ild

. Mother told Father she wa s preg n an t wi th Child, and said that 4 “ [F athe r] be lie ve d m e, li ke r igh t aw ay , he w as a ll the re f or it , say ing tha t, y eah, he 5 was go nn a ta ke res po ns ib il it y .” 6 { 5} Whe n M oth er

w as thr ee m onths pre gnant, she tol d F athe r’ s li ve -i n gi rl fr ie nd 7 tha t sh e w as pr eg na nt w ithF athe r’ s c hil d. Whe n F athe r le ar ne d th at Mo the r ha d to ld 8 his gir lf

ri en d that she w as pr eg na nt w ith Fa the r’ s baby , Fa the r tol d M oth er tha t i f she 9 retra cted the statem ent and told his girlfriend that her baby wa s not Father’ s, then 10 Fa the r w oul d “ ta ke c ar e of [ he r] an d th e baby

. ” Mothe r ac ce de d to F athe r’ s r eque st 11 an d to ld the gir lf

ri en d th at som eo ne e lse w as the f athe r, but Mo the r did

not te ll 12 an y one e lse tha t he wa s not Chil d’ s fa the r. Sh ortly the re af te r, Mo the r re af

fi rm ed to 13 Father’ s girlfriend that Father wa s the father of Child. Mother also r eceived m essages 14 fr om F athe r’ s gi rl fr ie nd a cknow le dgi ng tha t M oth er w as pr eg n an t

w i thF ath e r ’ s c h ild

. 15 Mothe r te sti fi ed

tha t, a ft er

she r ea ff irm ed to Fathe r’ s gi rl fr ie nd tha t F athe r w as the 16 fat he r of

he r ba by, Fath er “ dr op pe d o ff t he face of t he eart h.” 17 { 6} Father did not provid e any supp ort to Mother during her pre gnancy . C hild was 18 born in Las V egas, N ewMexico; Father w as not present at the birth. A fter C hild was 19 born, M othe r w a s t ol d t ha t i n or de r t o r e c e i ve w e l f a r e be ne f i t s, sh e ha d to file a4

1 pe tit ionf

or c hil d su ppor t f ro m F athe r. Mo the r fi le d th e ch ild sup port pe tit ion , but 2 “ dropped it” after she m arrie d Husband, as she believed H usband “ wa s a better f ather 3 than [Father] .” Mother testified that her only contact with Fa ther since she w as three 4 m onth s pregnant had b ee n during a m eeting with CY FD after Child was re m oved 5 fr om he r cu sto dy

. F athe r ne ve r supporte d M oth er or Ch ild f oll ow ing Ch ild ’ s bi rth, 6 and Father did not vis it Mother to m eet Child after Child’s birth. The f irst tim e Fa ther 7 m et Ch ild w as w he n M s. Mart ine z br ough t C hil d to hi s ho m e. Other than th at one 8 vis it, f or the f ir st f if te enm onths o f Ch ild ’ s li fe , F athe r ha d no c ont ac t w ithCh ild

. 9 II. CY FD Pe rm anency P lanning Work er’s T estim ony 10 { 7} Ms
. Mart ine z test ifi ed that she e m ai le d F athe r on Apr il 28, 201 6, r eg ar din g 11 Child, and Father called her that day . D uring that ph one call, F ather said that he had 1 2 h a ds e x w i t h M o t h e r

o n e t i me . F a t h e r

a l s o t o l d M s . M a rt i n e z t h a th e h a dav a s e c t o my 13 two y ears e arlier and so coul d not b e Child’ s father. The next day , Father called her 14 and stated that after investigating and look ing at a ti m el i n e, Father did no t have a 15 vasectom

y two y ears a go and that Child looked j ust like his son who wa s born three 1 6 m ont hs b efo re Child

. Ms
. Ma rt ine z al so t es tif ie d th atshe ha d se en F ac eb ook 17 mes sa ge s in whi ch Mo th er repo rte d to Fat he r th at Ch il d was Fath er’s b a b y. 18 Ac cording to Ms. Martinez, Mother notified Father that Child wa s his and th at afte r 1 9 Mot he r m arri ed , Mo the r tol d F at he r tha t “ she did n’ t . . . ne ed an y th in g fr om him5

1 be cau se he r hu sb an d was th ere t o s te p u p a nd be a fat he r to [Ch il d].” 2 { 8} M s . M ar t i n ez t es t i fi ed t h at s h e a n dh ers up er v i s o r b ro u g h tCh i l dt o Fa t h er ’s 3 h o m e s o F a t h e r c o u l d m e e t C h i l d

. D u r i n g a f a m i l y - c e n t e r e d m e e t i n g f a c i l i t a te d by 4 CY FD , Fa the r sta te d tha t the onl y re as on “ he ste ppe d up w as be ca use [ Ch ild ] w as in 5 foster care and he did n’ t want [Child] in foster car e. ” M s. Martinez testified that 6 Father had not established a relations hip or a bond with Chi ld since he had onlym et 7 Child on ce bef

ore the hear ing. Ms. Martinez w as also concerned because F ather had 8 ne ve r pr ovi de d any

f inanc ia l su

ppor t t o C hil d. 9 { 9} Ms
. Mart ine z te st if ie d th at the w ee k be fo re F athe r’ s a dj udi ca tio n he ar ing , 10 Fa the r ca lle d he r an d le ft avoi ce m ai l i ndi ca tin g th at he want ed to r el inquis h hi s 11 pa re nta l ri ght s to Ch ild

. Fa the r ex pla ine d hi s de ci sio n by statin g th at

he did not w an t 12 to do anyparenting classes required by CY FD because he did n o t feel that he had 13 done a nythi ng w ro ng w ithr es pe ct to Ch ild

. 14 III. Fath er’s T estim ony 15 A. Fath er’s T estim ony Regardin g When H e H ad Notic e of M other’ s 16 P re gn an cy Wi th C hi ld 17 { 10} Fa t h er t es tified that he first found out about Child and that he was C hild ’s 18 father when Ms . Martinez em ailed him in April 2016, although he did not rem em ber 19 the da te . F athe r, how ev er , a lso adm itt ed he ha d no tic e tha t M oth er w as pr eg na nt w ith 20 his c hil d m

uc h e ar lie r than Apr il 2016 , w he n M oth er w as c om m uni ca tin g w ithboth6

1 him and h i s g i rl friend o n Facebook about Mot her’ s pregnancy with Child, but that 2 Mothe r tol d hi m

Ch ild w as not his

. F athe r co nti nue d, “ Sh e ke pt . . . tr y ing to ar gue 3 w ithus o n F ac eb ook, tha t she just wan ted me to take care of my respon sibili ties , a nd 4 I sa id th aty ou to ld m e th atit wasn ’t m y res po ns ib il it y

be cau se it ’s no t my

ki d.” 5 A cc or din g to Fa the r, be ca use Mothe r w as tr

y ing to arg ue w ithhim

on F ac eb ook, he 6 blo ck ed

he r, a nd the re fo re did not f ind out about Ch ild unt il CY FD too k C hil d in to 7 its c ust ody

. Mo the r ne ve r as ke d hi m f or an ythi ng re la te d to C hil d, w hic h m ad e him 8 be lie ve tha t Chi ld w as not his , be ca use “ if it w as m y daught er , [ Mothe r] w oul d have 9 pursued [m e] as being the dad, not telling m e and arguing with m y [girl fr i en d ] that 10 it was s om eo ne els e’s, we do n’t n eed y ou r m on ey no way .” 11 { 11} Fa the r ins ist ed he ha d “ no id ea” Mo the r w as pr eg na nt w ithhis c hil d un til 12 CYF D contacted him because he believed som eone else could have been the father 1 3 an db ec au s e M o t h erb ec ame p re g n an t “ s o s o o n .” On cr o s s -e x amin at i o n b y M o t h er ’s 14 at tor ne y , w he n a ske d w he the r Mothe r did giv e him not ic e tha t sh e w as pr eg na nt w ith 15 his child , F ather answ ered, despite his p revious denial, “ And w hen I asked her f or a 16 DN A te st, s h e d i d never get back a hold of m e, and she kept writing other 17 le tt ers —t h a t I do n’t n eed y ou r he lp , I do n’t n eed y ou r m on ey , I do n’t n eed th is , I 1 8 d o n ’t n e e d t h a t

— a n d w e j u s t b l o c k e d h e r f r o m a l l t h e p a g e s , a n d

t h i s i s t h e f

i r s tt i me 19 I’m he ari ng ab ou t i t n ow.”7

1 B. Fath er’s Ot her Testim ony 2 { 12} Fa the r te sti fi ed

tha t he ha s e igh t c hil dr en inc lud ing Ch ild , r an gin g ina ge f ro m 3 25 y ears to Ch ild ’ s a ge , w hic h w as 16 m onths a t the ti m e of the he ar ing

. F athe r did 4 not ha ve a ny pr ev iou s r ec or d w ithCY FD . When F athe r’ s c ouns el a ske d hi m if he 5 want ed t o provide for his daugh ter financially , e m otion ally , and in every way 6 poss ibl e, F athe r re spon de d y es . 7 { 13} Father a dm itted that he saw a phot ograph of h is daught er for the first tim e af ter 8 he f ound out w he re she w as ( im

ply ing f ost er c ar e) , loo ke d onF ac eb ook, f ound a 9 phot ogr ap h of

Ch ild an d said , “ W ow , kin daloo ks l ike [ m y son ]
. ” Fa the r co nti nue d, 10 “ [M y gir lf ri en d] is the one tha t sai d, he y , tha t’ s y our baby , if it’ s y our s, w e’ re gon na 11 ha ve the D N A te st, if it ’ s y our kid , w e do n’t w an t he r in f ost er c ar e. Be ca

use [ Ms
. 12 Mart ine z] tol d m e the f ir st c oupl e—th e fam ily

she stay ed

w ith , didn’ t w an t he r fo r 13 lon g te rm . T ha t’ s w ha t m ad e m e pushf or m y kid

. I ne ve r sa id, oh, the onl y r ea son I 14 w an t he r is be ca

use she ’ s in fo ste r care . I w an te d he r be ca use she ’ s m

y daught er a nd 15 I’ m a stay at hom e dad with her brother that’ s three m on t h s o l d er t h an her. ” Fa ther 1 6 a l s o t e s t i f

i e d t h a t h e w i l l “a l w a ys p r o v i d e f o r my k i d s w h e t h e r t h e i r

mo t h e r s n e e dme 17 orno t.” 18 { 14} Fa the r te sti fi ed tha t he f el t he was be ing “ bul lie d” a nd tre at ed unf ai rl y by 19 CY FD be ca

use a lth oughhe w as not

in Ch ild ’ s li fe , tha t w as not hi s fa ult , a nd h e8

1 could no t do everything CY FD wa s asking him to do with the short no tice that CY FD 2 w as pr ovi din g hi m

f or som e ta sks

. 3 IV . D ist ri ctC ou rt ’s D ec isi on 4 { 15} At the c onclusi on of the July 7, 2016 hearing, the district court orally ruled that 5 Fa the r ha d ab an done d Ch ild

. T he dis tr ic t co urt al so fo und tha t Fath er k ne w about 6 Child at the beginn i n g of Mother’ s pregnancy and, significantly , that Mother w as 7 m ore cr edible than Father. The district court was trou b l ed b y Father’ s expressed 8 de sire t o rel in qui sh h is r igh ts t o C hil d th e w ee k be fo re the a dj udi ca tor y he ar ing , 9 sta tin g th at

it did “ not sit w el l wit h th e [c] ourt. ” Fi na lly , the dis tr ic t c ourt st at ed , 1 0 “ fi ft ee n m o n t h s h av e g o n e b y, an dh er e we ar e. An dy o ud i d n ’t s t ep fo rw ar d , [ Fa t h er ], 11 until y ou were finally tested, and there y ou are. ” 12 { 16} T he dis tr ic t c ourt e nte re d F athe r’ s a dju di ca tor y j udgm en t onJul y

20, 201 6, 13 w hic h st at ed

in re le va nt p ar

t: 14 3. CYF D has proven by clear and convin cing evidence that as 15 to [ Fa the r] , [ Ch ild ] is a ne gle ct ed c hil d a s f oll ow s: 1 6 a. [C h i l d ] ha s b ee n ab an d o n ed b y h er[F at h er ], 17 pursuant to Sec tion 3 2A-4-2(F )(1). 1 8 4
. T he [ d i s t r i c t c o u rt m a d e ] t h e f o l l o w i n g f

i n d i n g s a nd 19 co nc lus ion s: 20 a. [F athe r] ha d kn ow le dge tha t [M oth er ] w as pr eg na nt 2 1 an d t h a t [ M o t h e r ] i n d i c a t e d h e w a s t h e f a t h e r of 22 [C ] hil d;9

1 b. [Father ] did no t provide any financial or other 2 s up p o rtt o [ M o t h e r ] t h r o u g h o u th e r p r e g n a n c y. 3 c. [Mother] filed a p at ernity action for child supp ort 4 lis tin g [ Fa the r] a s th e Re spon de nt i n 20 15. 5 d. [F athe r] ha s no t pr ovi de d any fi na nc ia l suppor t and 6 did not ha ve c ont ac t w ith[ C] hi ld for ape ri od o f 7 ove r thr ee m onths. 8 e. [Father] left [ Child] in the care of [Mother] wher e 9 [C hil d] w as ne gle ct ed

. 10 f. T he re w as n o j ust if ia ble c au se f

or [ Fa the r] le av ing 11 [C hil d] in the c ar e of others w ith out

pr ovi sio n f

or 12 sup po rta nd w i t ho ut c om m un i c a t i onf

or o ve r t hr ee 13 m on th s. 14 DISC US SION 15 I. Statu tory Fr am ew ork 16 { 17} The C hildren’ s Code, N MSA1978 , §§ 32A-1-1 to -25- 5 (1993, as am ended 17 th ro ug h 2 01 7) , con ta in s t he Abu se an d Neg le ct Act (th e Act) , NMSA 197 8, § § 3 2A18 4- 1 to -3 5 (1 993, as a m en de d th ro ugh 2017 ). T he pur pose of the Ch ildre n’ s C ode is: 19 fi rs t t o pr ovi de f or the c ar e, pr ote ct ionan d w hol es om e m en ta l and 20 phy sic al de ve lop m en t of c hil dr en [, ]
. . . the n to pr es er ve the uni ty

of the 21 fam ily

w he ne ve r poss ibl e. A c hil d’ s he al th and s af ety sh al l be the 2 2 pa ra m oun tc o n c e rn . . . . I ti s t h e i n t e n to f t h e [ L ] e g i s l a tu r e t h a t , t o the 23 m a xi m

um e xt e nt po ss i bl e , c hi l dr e n i n N e w M e xi c o sh a l l be r e a r e d as 2 4 m emb er s o f a fa m i l y u n i t [. ] 25 Section 32A-1-3(A ). 26 { 18} T he A ct

de fi ne s c hil d a

buse , c hil d ne gle ct , a nd p ro vid es the p ro ces s for the1 7 T h e 2 0 0 9 v e r s i o n o f t h e d e f i n i t i o n s s e c t i o n o f

t h e A c t , w a s i n e f

f e c ta tt h e t i me 1 1 8 t h e p e t i t i o n w a s f

i l e d a s o p p o s e d t o t h e 2 0 1 6 v e r s i o n , w h i c h w a s i n e f f e c ta tt h e t i me 19 of the ad

j udi ca tio n. T he de fi nit ion of “ ab an donm en t” is unc ha nge d, a nd i n bo th the 20 2009 a nd the 201 6 ve rs ion s, it is fo und at

S ec tio n 32 A-4 -2 (A). The de fi nit ionof 21 “ ne gle ct ” is als o unch an ge d, but ha s bee n re num be re d fr om

S ec tio n 32 A -4 -2 (E )( 1) 22 in the 200 9 ve rs ionto Se ct ion32A -4 -2 (F )( 1) in the 2016 ve rs ion

. (I n it s 20 17 s es sio n 23 our L eg isl at ur e am en de d S ec tio n 32 A -4 -2 a ga in (e ff ec tiv e June 16, 201 7) , so tha t the 2 4 d ef i n i t i o n o f n eg l ec ti s n o w f o u n dat Se ct i o n 3 2 A- 4 -2 (G ). ) T h e d i s t ri ct co u rt ’s 2 5 ad ju d i ca t o ry ju d g m en tci t es t o t h e 2 0 1 6 v er s i o n , an d t h e p ar t i es d o s o o n ap p ea l . We 26 ci te to the 201 6 ve rs iona s w el l

. 10 1 ad j udi ca tio n of

both. S ec tio n 32 A -4 -2 (A )( 2) (a ) de fi ne s “ ab an donm en t” a s f oll ow s: 1 2 ab an do nm en t in cl ud es in st an ces when th e p aren t, wi tho ut j ust ifi abl e 3 ca use : . . . (2) l eft th e ch il d wi th ot he rs , inc luding the oth er par en t or an 4 ag en cy , wi tho ut p rov isi on f or s uppo rt a nd w ith out

c om m uni ca tio n fo r 5 a period of: (a) thr ee m onths if the child was under six year s of age a t 6 t h e c o m

m en ce m en to f t h e t h re e- m o n t h p er i o d [. ] 7 (E m phasis add ed.) (Inter

nal quot ation m arks om itted.) S ection 32A-4-2(F) (1) in turn 8 de fi ne s a“ ne gle ct ed ch ild ” as a ch ild “ w ho h as be enaba ndon ed by the c hil d’ s pare nt, 9 g u ar d i an o r c u s t o d i an [. ]” 10 { 19} U nde r the A ct , adis tr ic t c ourt ho ld s an adj udi ca tio n he ar ing to de te rm ine 11 w he the r a pa re nt ab use d an d/o r ne gle ct ed his or he r ch ild

. Se ct ion32A- 4- 20. 12 A cc or din g to S ec tio n 32 A -4 -2 0( H ), “ If the c ourt f

ind s onthe ba sis of

. . . c le ar a nd 13 co nvi nc ing e vid en ce , c om pe te nt, m at er ia l and r el ev an t i n na tur e, tha t the c hil d is 14 neglected or abused, the court shall enter an order finding th at the child is neglected 15 or abuse d and m ay

pr oc ee d im

m ed ia te ly or a t a postp oned h eari ng t o m ak e 16 dis posi tio n of

the c as e. ” Se ct ion 32A -4 -2 0( I) pr ovi de s for im m ed ia te appe al to thi s13 Fa the r ac know le dge s, a nd C Y FD a gr ee s, tha t F athe r’ s no tic e of appe al f ro m 2 14 the adj udication j udgm ent was untim ely . T he district court entered the w ritten 15 adj udicatory j udgm ent finding that Father neglecte d Child on July 20, 2016. Father 16 fi le d hi s no tic e of

appe al appe al ing the a dj udi ca tio n j udgm e n t o nS ep te m

be r 12, 201 6, 17 whi ch was m or e th an th irt y da y s afte r th e or de r was fil ed

. See Ru le 12- 201( A )( 1) (b ) 18 N MR A
. “ W e revie w de nov o th e que sti on o f w he the r thi s C ourt sh oul d a cc ep t 19 j ur isd ic tio n w he re the not ic e of appe al f ro m a n a dj udi ca tio n of

abuse a nd n eg le ct

is 20 filed late. ” St at e ex r el . Chi ld re n, Y ou th & Fami li es Dep’ t v. Aman da M. , 21 2006 -N MC A -1 33, ¶ 18, 140 N
. M. 578, 144 P. 3d 1 37. A ti m el y not ic e of appe al “ is 22 a m andatory

precondition to the exercise of a ppellate j urisdictio n.” Sta te ex r el. 23 Children, Yo uth & Fam ilies De p ’t v. Lance K

. , 2009-NMC A- 054, ¶ 51, 146 N. M. 24 286, 209 P. 3d 778. How ever, “ it is w ell settled that failure to tim ely file a notice of 25 appeal from

either an a djudication of abuse or n eglect o r an order term inating parental 26 rights cons titutes in effe ctive assistance of cou nsel per se, such that the m erits of an 27 appeal will be considered notwithst anding the procedural deficie ncy .” Id

. A lth ough 28 Fat he r’s no ti ce o f ap pe al was u nt im el y , we pro ceed to th e m eri ts . 11 1 Co urt of

a n a dj udi ca tio n de te rm ina tio n. 2 2 II. The D istrict C ourt’ s Find ings Were Supp orted by Clear and C onvincing 3 Evidenc e and T ho s e Findings Su pporte d th e D istrict C ourt’ s 4 D et er m in at ion Th at F at he r Ha d A ba nd on ed an d Th us N eg le ct ed C hi ld 5 { 20} Father states that he “ challenges Finding s of Fac t Nos. 4(e) and 4(f) for lack 6 of sub stanti al e vid en ce . A s am at te r of law , F athe r [a lso ] ch al le nge s w he the r the se 7 fi ndi ngs, e ve n if

sup porte d by

sub stanti al e vid en ce, supp ort the ult im at e fi ndi ng o f 8 ne gle ct . ” A s w e unde rs tand F athe r’ s le ga l arg um en t, he is co nte ndi ng tha t his lac k of 9 know le dge tha t Moth er w oul d ne gle ct

Ch ild w hil e Ch ild

w as in Mothe r’ s c ar e an d 10 al so l ac k of

c er ta in k now le dge ba se d onD N A te sti ng tha t he wa s th e fa the r of Ch ild 11 am ount to justifiable ca use that negates an y c o nclusio n of abandonm ent under 12 Section 32A-4-2(A )(2) and thu s neglect under Section 32A-4-2(F) (1).12

1 { 21} “ To m eet the standard of proof in an abus e o r n eg l ect procee ding , the f act 2 finde r m

ust be presented with clear and convin cing evidence that the child was 3 abused or neglected.” State ex rel. Children, Yo uth & Fam ilies Dep’t v . Shawna C. , 4 2005 -N MC A -0 66, ¶

7, 137 N
. M. 687 , 114 P.3 d 36 7. “ Fo r ev ide nc e to b e cl ear an d 5 co nvi nc ing , it m

ust ins tantl y til t the sc al es in the af fi rm at ive w he n w ei ghe d a ga ins t 6 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 ing 7 convictio n that the evidence is true.” Id

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

ks and c ita tio n 8 om itt ed ). “ O ur

standard of r ev ie w is a na rr owone a nd we m ay not r e- w ei gh the 9 ev ide nc e. O ur

sta ndard of r ev iew i s th er ef

or e w he the r, vie w ing the e vid en ce in the 10 lig ht m ost favor ab le to the pr ev ai lin g pa rty , the fa ct fi nde r co uld pr ope rl y de te rm ine 11 t ha tt he c l e a r

a nd c on vi nc i ng e vi de nc e s t a nd a r d w a s m e t .” Id

. ( int er na l qu ota tio n 12 m ar ks and c ita tio ns o m itt ed ). F urthe r, “ our r ev ie w is lim ite d t o a det er m ina tio n of 13 w he the r the dis tr ic t co urt co uld ha ve fo und tha t the pa re nts ab use d or ne gle ct ed

[ the 14 c] hild b ased upon the evidence before it. W e theref ore disregard any

of the evidence 15 contained in th e re cord that arose af ter the adj udication of abuse and neglect.” Id

. 16 { 22} Father’ s challenge t o the district court’ s determ ination that he had neglected 17 Ch ild by aba ndon m en t w ith out

j ust if ia ble c au se r equir es inter pr et at ionof

the 18 statutory

definition o f ab an donm ent. T his Court “ review s issues o f statutory 19 interpretation de novo .” In re Gr ac e H. , 201 4- N MS C- 034, ¶ 34, 335 P
. 3d 7 46.13

1 A. Subst antial Evidence Supp orts the Distr ict Cour t’s Fin dings That F ather 2 (1 ) Le ftC hi ld in t he C ar e of M ot he r (2 ) Wit ho ut P ro vis ion f or S up po rtor 3 Com m unicatio n, a nd (3) That C hild Was Ne glected While in M other’ s 4 Care; Sub stantial Evidence Al s o Sup ports th e D istrict C ourt’ s Find ing 5 Th at F at he r Was on N ot ic e Th at He Wa s t he F at he r of C hi ld 6 { 23} Fi ndi ng 4 (e ) sta te s: “ [F athe r] le ft Ch ild in th e care of

[ Mothe r] w he re Ch ild 7 wa s neg l ec ted.” The thre e w itnesses testified du ring the adjudication hearing that 8 Fa the r ha d no c ont ac t w ithMo the r af te r the ti m e she w as thr ee m onths pr eg na nt unti l 9 the CY FD -f

ac ili ta te d m ee tin g th at

oc curr ed be fo re the he ar ing

. Mothe r te sti fi ed a nd 10 Father a dm itted that Father did not su pport her during her pregnancy . F ather further 11 adm itted that the first and onlytim e h e m et h i s daughter was w hen she was f ifteen 12 m onth s old, about a m onth before the a djudication hearing, during a visit that was 13 al so f ac ili ta te d by

CY FD
. T hus, the dis tr ic t c ourt’ s f ind ing tha t Fa the r le ft

Ch ild in 14 Mother’ s care wa s supp orted by clear and convin cing evidence. 15 { 24} Furthe r, as sta te d ab ove , earl y in thi s pr oc ee din g Mothe r en te re d ano c ont es t 16 ple a to C Y FD ’ s a lle ga tio n th at she ha d negl ec te d Chil d. Fa the r doe s no t a ddr es s th e 17 ev i de nc e r e gar di ng a nd othe rw i se do e s no t c ha l l e ng e t he un de r l y i ng f i nd i ng that 18 Child was neglected w hile in the care of Mother. “ [W ] e re view substantial evidence 1 9 cl ai m s o n l y i f t h e ap p el l an tap p ri s es t h e C o u rt o f al l ev i d en ce b ea ri n g o n t h e i s s u e[ .]” 20 Chavez v. S.E .D . L abor atori es , 2000 -N MC A -0 34, ¶ 26, 128 N
. M. 768, 999 P
. 2d 4 12, 21 aff’d in p art

, re v’ d in par t , 2000 -N MSC- 034, 129 N .M. 794, 134 P.3d 532. Ther efore,17 Fa the r’ s a ctio ns can be c om pa re d w iththe f

athe r’ s a ct ion s in Ben

ja min O. , 3 18 2009 -N MCA -039, ¶¶ 18-23. In tha t c as e, the f athe r did not c om m un ic at e with hi s 19 child for five m onth s, and this Court affir m ed the district court’ s finding that he had 20 ne gl ect ed an d aba nd o n e d h i s c hi ld

. Id

. ¶ 41- 42. H er e, F athe r did

not c om m uni ca te 21 w ithhis c hil d f

or f if te enm onths. 14 1 Fa the r’ s su

bst an tia l e vid en ce c ha lle nge to Fi ndi ng 4 (e ) is r ej ec te d. 2 { 25} Fi ndi ng 4 (f

) sta te s: “ T he re w as no j ust if ia ble c au se f

or [ Fa the r] le av ing [ Ch ild ] 3 in the care of others without provision for supp ort and com m unication for over thre e 4 m onths. A s st at ed , the re a lso w as c le ar a nd c onvi nc ing e vi de nc e tha t, f oll ow ing 5 Child’s birth, Father did not supp ort Child or com m unicate with Child for over three 6 m onths. T he ev ide nc e show ed tha t Fa the r did noth ing to c ont ac t M oth er , to pr ovi de 7 supp ort t o C hil d, or

e ve n to m ee t C hil d or

inquir e as to h er well -b ei ng. I n sh ort, 8 Fa the r did

nothin g to supp ort or

f ost er a ny kin d of r el at ion shi p w ithCh ild

f or the f ir st 9 fifteen m onth s of her life, i .e ., ab sent a showing of justifiable cause he abandoned 10 Ch ild as tha t ter

m is def ine d in Se ct ion 32A -4 -2 (A )( 2)

. Fa the r te sti fi ed at the he ar ing 11 th athe wou ld “ al way s p ro vi d e f o r m y ki ds whet he r th ei r m ot he rs ne edm e o r no t.” 12 H is a ct ion s in dic at e oth er w ise

. Fat he r did nothin g w ithr es pe ct to Ch ild unt il Ms
. 13 Mart ine z co nta ct ed

him

. A lth oughMo the r ne ve r re ac he d ou t t o F athe r ag ai n 14 fo llo w ing Ch ild ’ s bi rth to spe ci fi ca lly a sk h im f or su pp or t or

to intro duc e Ch ild

to 15 him , F athe r’ s ob lig at ion s ow ed to Ch ild w er e not c ont ing en t up on s uc h a ct ion

. 3 16 { 26} Substantial e v i d en ce there fore supports the basic factual determ ination s that15

1 unde rl ie the dis tr ic t c ourt’ s Fi ndi ngs 4( e) a nd 4 (f ). F athe r’ s m ai n c ha lle nge in fa ct is 2 le ga l: tha t a s am at te r of law he c an not

be ad j udi ca te d to ha ve ne gle ct ed Ch ild unl es s 3 he kn ew th atMo th er h ers el f ha d n eg le ct edCh il d a nd als o th at , o n th e ba si s of DNA 4 te sti ng, he w as the f

athe r of C hild. W e ad dr es s th ose a rg um en ts i n th e fo llo w ing 5 se ct io ns . 6 { 27} How ever, b ecause it is m aterial to our analy sis, w e also note that sub stantial 7 evidence established th at Father wa s on notice that he wa s the father of Child. Fa ther 8 an d M oth er

e nga ge d in se xua l i nte rc our se . Mo the r te sti fi ed tha t sh e tol d F athe r ab out 9 he r pr eg na nc y by him as soon as she kne w ab out it, an d tha t Fa the r tol d he r he w oul d 10 ta ke r es pons ibi lity

f or Ch ild

. Mo the r al so tes tif

ie d that Fa the r la te r tol d her he w oul d 11 supp ort her during her pregnancy if she would tell Father’ s girlfriend that Child was 12 not his

. In de ed , F athe r doe s no t c ha lle nge the dis tr ic t c ourt’ s F ind ing 4( a) tha t he 13 kne wMo the r w as pr eg na nt an d tha t M oth er ha d id en tif

ie d hi m a s th e fa the r of

Ch ild

. 1 4 Thus, F ather w as on noti ce for several m onth s before Child ’ s birth that he wa s the father 1 5 of Ch ild

. Fu

rt he r, the fa ct

tha t F at he r ini tia lly

tol d M oth er

he w oul d ta

ke r es pons ibi lit

y 1 6 for Child amount s to an admissio n of paternity

. The district c ourt spec ifically stated that 1 7 it credited

Mother’ s testim ony

that Father knew

he had a child when she w as three1 8 month s pregnant. A s stated above, w e do not rewe igh th is evidence.16

1 B . Fath er ’ s K n owl e d ge T h atC h i l d W ou l d B e N e gl e c t e d W h i l e i n M ot h e r’s 2 Care 3 { 28} Fa the r’ s f

ir st c ha lle nge to Fi ndi ngs 4( e) a nd 4 (f ) fo cu se s no t so m

uc h onthe 4 fact of Mother’ s neglect of Child while in her car e as on the im plication th at he bear s 5 re spon sib ili ty

f or tha t ne gle ct . T ha t i s, he a rg ue s th at fo r hi m to be f ound to ha ve 6 ab an done d and thus ne gle ct ed Ch ild w hil e Chi ld w as in the c ust ody of Mo the r, a s a 7 m at te r of la w he “ wou ld ha ve to kn ow t ha t Ch il d wo ul d b e n eg le ct edin hi s ab se nc e.” 8 H e c o n t e n d s t h a t t h e d i s t r i c t c o u rt ’ s a d j u d i c a t i o n w a s f

l a w e d b e c au s e i t “ m ad e no 9 fi ndi ngs w ithr eg ar d to a ny kno w le dge by

F athe r tha t Mothe r w oul d ne gle ct Ch ild or 10 th atCh il d was ot he rwis e in ne ed of hi s pr ot ect io n.” Usi ng th e rubr ic of Sect io n 3 2A11 4- 2( A ), w e unde rs tand h is p osi tio n to be that the abse nc e of suc h know le dge a m ount s 12 to “ j ust if ia ble c au se ” tha t ne ga te s a d et erm inati on o f ab an donm en t. W e ar e not 13 pe rs ua de d. F athe r ide nti fi es no c as e law tha t su ppor ts s uch a c onstru ct ionof 14 “ j us ti fiable c au se , ” an d c onsi de ra ble auth or ity

sup ports the c onc lus iontha t, on the 15 contrary , Section 32A-4-2(A )(2) im poses an affir

m ative oblig ation on a parent to act 16 to e nsur e tha t the ch ild is re ce ivi ng n ec es sa ry

c ar e an d su

ppor t. Me re ign or an ce is not 17 j ust if ia ble c au se f

or the f ai lur e to p ro vid e supp ort fo r, and c om m uni ca te w ith , the 18 ch ild tha t i s th e sta tut or

y pr ed ic at e fo r a de te rm ina tio n o f ab an donm en t and thus 19 ne gle ct . 20 { 29} U nde r the Ch ildre n’ s C ode , “ [a ] c hil d’ s he al th and s af ety sha ll be the17

1 pa ram ount

c onc er n. ” Se ct ion32A -1 -3 (A ). Furthe r, w ith out j ust if ia ble c au se , S ec tio n 2 32A -4 -2 (A )( 2) m an da te s a fi ndi ng of abandon m en t i f the pare nt “ [l eave s] the c hil d 3 wit h o t h e r s, i nc lu di ng th e o th er p aren t o r an ag en cy , wi tho ut p rov isi on f or s uppo rt 4 and wi tho ut c om m uni ca tio n ” f o r a s p ec i fi ed p er i o do f t i m e . ( E mp h a s i s ad d ed .) We 5 unde rs tand this langua ge or din ar ily to re qui re aparent , i f he or she doe s no t have 6 cu sto dy

of the c hil d, to ta ke ne ce ssary ste ps t o c omm

un ic at e w iththe c hil d and 7 oth er w ise ve ri fy

tha t the c hil d is be ing c ar ed f or a nd s uppo rt ed

w hil e in the c ust ody 8 of the oth er pe rs on. F athe r co uld

not sim ply as sum e tha t Moth er

w as pr ope rl y

c ar ing 9 fo r Ch ild

. 10 { 30} Ne w Me xico ca se l aw buttresses the propo sition that a non-custod ial parent has 11 a duty to ensure that his or h er child is being adequately supp orted and cared f or. In 12 St at e ex r el . Chi ld re n, Y ou th an d Fa mil ie s De p a r t m e n t v. Co sme V. , 13 2009 -N MCA -094, ¶¶ 21, 2 7, 14 6 N. M. 809 , 215 P. 3d 74 7, this Court concluded th at 14 the dis tr ic t c ourt r ea sona bly c oul d have c onc lud ed

tha t the no n- cu sto dia l pare nt 15 neglected his child ren wh en h e failed to “ take any significant role, m

uch less an 1 6 a c t i v e o n e , i n r e g u l a r l y ass uri ng tha t the [ c] hil dr en ’ s w el l- be ing a nd p ro pe r ne ed s 17 w er e m et . [ T he f

] athe r did ve ry li ttl e to f ulf ill his pare nta l ob lig at ion s. ” (E m pha sis 18 added.) ( Internal quotation m arks and citation om itted.) Se e als o Sta te e x re l. 19 Ch il dr en , Y

ou th & Fami li es Dep’ t v. Al fo ns o M.-E. , 2016 -N MC A -0 21, ¶ 31, 366 P. 3d18

1 2 8 2 (“Ho we v er , d es p i t e [t h e f]a t h er ’s i n ca rc er at i o n at t h e t i m e o f t h e d i s t ri ct co u rt ’s 2 adj udication , he nevertheless had a continu ing legal obligation to provid e proper care 3 fo r [the c ] hil d. ”) ; St at e e x r e l

. C h il dr en , Y

ou th & Fami li es Dep’ t v. Ben ja min O. , 4 2009 -N MC A -0 39, ¶

¶ 18- 23, 146 N
. M. 60, 206 P
. 3d 1 71 ( hol din g f athe r’ s la ck

of 5 comm un ica tio n w ithhis c hil d f or f ive m onths c onst itu te d a ba ndon m en t w he n th e 6 ch ild w as li vin g w ithhis sis te r) ; cf

. In r e G ua rd ia ns hi

p o f As hl ei gh R. , 7 2002 -N MC A -1 03, ¶

22, 132 N
. M. 772 , 55 P
. 3d 9 84 ( “ A pa ren t’s c ont ac t w iththe 8 ch ildre n and f

inanc ia l su

ppor t f or the ch ildre n dur ing the ir ab se nc e w ill w ei gh a ga ins t 9 a finding of abandon m ent.”)

. 10 { 31} We a l s o r e

j e c tF a t h e r ’s a r g u me n tt h a tw e s h o u l dap p l y t o t h i s c a s e o u r S up r e me 11 Court’ s rece nt construction of NMSA 197 8, Section 30 -6-1(B) (2009), w hich defines 12 “ cri m ina l c hil d a

ba ndon m en t” in Sta te v . Ste phe nson , 2 0 1 7
- N M S C

- 0 0 2 , ¶ ¶ 13- 17, 1 3 3 8 9 P. 3 d2 7 2 . F at h erco n t en d s t h at we s h o u l dco n s t ru e S ec t i o n 3 2 A- 4 -2 (A )( 2 )’s 14 de fi nit ionof

aba ndon m en t i n a m an ne r co nsi ste nt w ithour S upr em e Co urt’ s ho ldi ng 15 tha t c ri m ina l a

ba ndon m en t w ill be fo und onl y w he re doi ng so “ ex pose s the ch ild to 16 a ri sk o f ha rm , ” an d w he re th e ab an doni ng p ar en t i s “pe rm an en tly or te m por ar ily 17 responsib le for the c us t od y and control of the child[.] ” Ste phe nson , 201 7- N MS C- 002, 18 ¶ 16. B ut as CYF D points o u t , “ An abuse and neglect proceeding is not a crim inal 19 prosecution .” State ex rel. Children, Yo uth & Fam ilies Dep’t v

. Mi ch ael T. , 200 7-19

1 N MC A -1 63, ¶

11, 143 N
. M. 75, 172 P
. 3d 1 287. F urthe r, the param ount c onc er n of 2 the Ch ildre n’ s C ode is pr ote ct ing the he al th and s af ety of the ch il d, no t punis hin g 3 conduct th at the L egislatur e h as deem ed subject to cr im inal sanction. W e theref ore 4 do n ot i nte rp re t the de fi nit ionof aba ndon m en t i n Section 3 2A -4 -2 (A )( 2) to 5 incorporate the elem ents of crim inal abandon m ent under Section 30-6-1(B). 6 { 32} Father w as on noti ce and ac knowledged that he wa s the father of Child. T here 7 is n o e vid en ce tha t F athe r took an y ste ps to che ck on and e nsur e Ch ild ’ s w el l- be ing 8 w hil e Ch il d was inMo the r’ s c ar e. U nde r the f ac ts o f thi s c as e, F athe r’ s la ck of 9 knowledge of Mother’ s neglect is not justifiable cause for le aving Child with Mother 10 without provi sion for sup port and without comm unication for a p er i o d of three 11 m onths, i. e. , it

is no d ef

en se to a d et er

m ina tio n th at

F athe r ne gle ct ed

Ch ild by 12 ab an do ni ng he r. 13 C. Fath er’s Kn ow ledge Th at He Was C hild’s F ather 14 { 33} Father a lso argues that “ a m an’ s departure f ro m a child who has not been 15 cl earl y

ide nti fi ed ”— in p ar

tic ular, by m eans of D N A te sti ng— “ as his bio log ic al c hil d 16 cannot

be co nstru ed as ‘ ab an donm en t’ fo r pur pose s of a pe tit ionf or ne gle ct . ” Inthe 17 co nte xt o f Se ct ion32A -2 -4 (A )( 2) , in ch al le ngi ng F ind ing s 4( e) a nd 4( f) on this 18 second groun d, Fa ther eff ectively is contendin g t h at as a m atter of law the a bsence 19 of D N A te sti ng e sta

bli shi ng h is p at er

nity c onst itu te d “

j ust if iabl e caus e” f

or not20

1 providi ng for Child’ s supp ort and for not com m unicating with her f

or the first fif

teen 2 m onths o f he r lif

e. Be ca use the re w as no s uc h c le ar a nd c onvi nc ing ev ide nc e tha t he 3 had such certain knowledge t hat he wa s the father of Child, he urges, the district 4 court’ s adjudication of neglect on the basis of abando nm ent was e rror. Whether a 5 father m

ust have confirm ation byDN A te st after he is on notice that he has fathered 6 a ch ild be fo re he can be adj udi ca te d to ha ve ne gle ct ed the c hil d by

aba ndon m en t i s 7 a m at te r of

fir st im pr es si on . 8 { 34} W e conclude that the lack of cer tainty of paternity

is not a defense to an 9 ad j udi ca tio n of

ne gle ct by aba ndon m en t. T ha t i s, suc h unce rt ai nty w ill not c onst itu te 10 “ j ust if ia ble c au se ” fo r a m anw ho i s othe rw ise on n oti ce tha t he m ay ha ve fa the re d a 11 child to fail to m ake provisi on f or supp ort of, and com

m unicate with, the child. U nder 12 the facts of this ca se established by clear and convin cing evidence, Father had m ore 13 than su ff

ic ie nt n oti ce tha t he w as the f athe r of Ch ild to giv e ri se to ana ff

irm at ive 14 oblig ation to eit h er p rovide such su pport and u ndertake such com m unication or, 15 alternatively , take steps to establis h he was not the father . If h e d i d n ei ther, Father 16 as sum ed

the r isk of a n a dj udi ca tio n of

ne gle ct . 17 1. Governing Legal P rinciple s 18 { 35} T his c as e doe s no t i nvol ve af athe r w ho had

absol ute ly

no know le dge of

his 19 child. O n the contrary , F ather had notice Mother w as pregnant wi th Child and had21

1 ac know le dge d th at

he w as the f

athe r. T he re fo re , a lth oughit a ro se in the c ont ex t of 2 an ad op ti on pro ceed in g, Hele n G. v. Ma rk J.H. , 200 8- N MS C- 002, 143 N
. M. 246 , 175 3 P. 3d 91 4, assists our analy sis. Ther e, our Suprem e Court considered whether a fa ther, 4 who knew a

bout the m other’ s pregnancy but did not act to assert paternity until after 5 another couple filed a petition to adopt the child, could be an “ acknowledged” father 6 who se co ns en t was req ui red be f o r e th e ad op ti on co ul d b e fi na li zed

. Id

. ¶¶ 2- 6; see 7 NMSA 1 97 8, § § 3 2A- 5- 3( F) (2 01 2) , -17 (A)(5 ) (2 00 5)

. Hele n G. indicates that when 8 a fa ther is on not ice th at h e h as fathered a chil d, if he wishes t o preserve his righ ts as 9 parent, he m

ust act diligent ly

and take af

firm ative action to qualify as an 10 acknowledged father bey ond re questin g an adj udication of paternity . 2008-NMS C11 002, ¶ 32 ( “ W e conclude that a m ere biolo gical connection is insufficient to qualify 12 as a presum ed or acknowledged father —it is onl y

the initial step toward 13 ack no wled ge d fath er sta tu s.” (in te rn al qu ot at io n m ark s o m it te d) ). Hele n G. rej ected 14 the pr opos iti on tha t “ the langua ge of the [A dopt ion ] A ct ev inc es a cl ear int en t t o be 15 . . . i ndul gent of fathers who app ear to be indifferent to their children.” Id

. ¶ 20
. He len 16 G
. a lso dis tin gui she d be tw ee n the fa the r w ho wa s on not ic e of his pa te rn ity a nd the 17 fathe r “ w ho [di d] not know or w ho [ ha d] no r ea son to k nowtha t [ he ha d] f

athe re d a 18 child.” Id

. ¶ 49 . W e se e th atdi ffer en ce as in st ru ct iv e. 19 { 36} F a t h e r

r e l i e s on In r e Interest o f Dy lan Z. , 697 N
. W
. 2d 7 07 (N eb

. Ct
. App.22

1 2005 ). In that case, the Ne braska Court of Appeals determ ined that there wa s no clear 2 an d c onvi nc ing e vid en ce tha t the f athe r int en tio na lly

abandon ed

his c hil d be ca

use the 3 fathe r’ s la ck

of c ont ac t w ith , a nd suppo rt fo r, the ch ild “ w as dir ec tly

a ttr ibu ta ble to 4 [the father’ s] lack of knowledge that he w as [the child’ s] father. ” Id

. at 7 18 -1 9. See 5 also S tate ex rel. Office for Servs. to Children & Fam ilies v. R angel , 927 P
. 2d 1 118, 6 1120 (O r. Ct. App. 1996 ) (“ [O regon’ s term in at i on for abandonm ent statute] 7 co nte m pla te s th at a fathe r knowof the e xis te nc e of

his c hil d be fo re he c anbe he ld t o 8 ha ve aba ndon ed

the c hil d.

. . . [T he ] fa the r te sti fi ed unde r oa th tha t he did not kno w 9 that he was the f

ather until he was ser

ved with the petition to te rm inate his parental 10 ri ght s. ”)

. T he ke y

dif fe re nc e be tw ee n In re D

ylan Z. and the instant case is that, here, 11 Fa the r ha d no ti ce he f athe re d C hil d. T his not ic e to F athe r is c ru ci al to our 12 de te rm ina tio n th at la ck of a D N A te st doe s no t c onst itu te j ust if ia ble c au se f

or le av ing 13 Ch ild in Mothe r’ s c ar e w ith out sup port or

c om m uni ca tio n f

or ove r thr ee m onths. 14 { 37} In re Ad

op ti on of D.M.M. , 955 P. 2d 61 8 (K an . Ct. App. 1997 ), is m ore 15 fa ct ua lly sim ilar to the c as e at

bar than In re Dy lan Z. T he re , the K an sa s C ourt of 16 Appe al s a ff

irm ed the tr ia l c ourt’ s f

ind ing that the f

athe r ha d f

ai le d to sup port hi s 17 ch ild ’ s m oth er

f or six m onths p ri or

to the ch ild ’ s birth and tha t the f athe r’ s c onse nt 18 to a dopt ionw as not

r equire d be cause he ha d a ba ndon ed his c hil d a ft er

ha vin g 19 kn owl ed ge of th e ch il d’s b irt h. Id

. at 621. A ccording to th e In re D.M.M. court, “ Af ter23

1 th e b ab y was bo rn, [ the father] did no thing but vis it two tim es.” Id

. The tr ial court 2 found, which the In re D.M.M. court approved, “ The fact that a m an knows onlythat 3 he w as apos sib le f

athe r dur ing the pr eg na nc ydoe s no t r el ie ve him f ro m the 4 responsib ility

to supp ort th e m o ther during the pregnancy .” Id

. ( int er na l qu ota tio n 5 m ar ks o m itt ed ). T he tr ia l c ourt c ont inu ed , stating th at th e fa the r “ co uld not j ust sit 6 ba ck a nd s ee w ha t ha

ppe ns unti l so m e unkn ow n po int in tim e in the f

utu re a nd d o 7 noth ing un t i l s o m eo ne else forc es the issue.” Id

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

ks and 8 citation om itted). T he In re D.M.M. c ourt a lso state d: 9 A ny

m ansho uld

be a w ar e tha t he m ay be co m e the f athe r of ac hil d a s a 10 re sul t of

ha vin g se xua l i nte rc our se w ithaw om an , r eg ar dl ess of the 11 num

be r of se xua l partne rs she ha s. I f an y of tho se partne rs w ish es to 12 pr es er

ve his pare nta l r igh ts i n th e ev en t of a la te r ad opt ion , ea chone w ill 13 be required to initiate reasonable eff orts toward supportin g the m other 14 pr ior

to the c hil d’ s bi rth. 15 Id

. a t 62 2. T his co nsi de ratio n is e qua lly r el ev an t i n th e co nte xt o f ana dj udi ca tio n f or 16 ne gl ect by aban do nm en t. 17 { 38} In re Interest of Chance J. , 776 N
. W
. 2d 519 (N eb

. 2009 ), a lso pr ovi de s us ef ul 1 8 an a l y s i s . T h e r e , t h e N e b r a s k a S up r e m e C o u rt a f f i rm e d t h e j u v e n i l e c o u rt ’ s f ind ing 19 th atth e fat he r ha d a ba nd on edhi s ch il d. Id

. at 5 22
. In re Chance J. inv olv ed ac hil d 20 who was bo rn to a m arri ed co up le whi le th e m ot he r was a pr os ti tu te . Id

. T he c oupl e 2 1 h ad s ep ar at ed b y th e t i m e t h e c h i l dwa s b o rn , b u tt h e f at h erwa s p re s en tfo r t h e c h i l d ’s 22 bi rth

. Id

. T he f athe r te sti fi ed

tha t, w he n he sawthe inf an t sh ortly

a ft er his bir th, the24

1 inf an t ha d w hit e ski n, blu e ey es , a nd r ed ha ir , w hic h w as “ aw kw ar d” be ca use the 2 fat he r was Afric an -Am eri can . Id

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

ks and c ita tio n om itt ed ). T he 3 fa t h ert es t i fi ed t h at t h e mot h ers t at ed t h at t h e c h i l d“ m u s th av e b ee n a t ri ck ’s 4 baby [, a nd tha t] onc e he saw [ the c hil d] , he did not be lie ve tha t [the ch ild ] w as his son 5 and m ade no further ef fort to try and determ ine whether he wa s [the] father. ” Id

. 6 (in te rn al qu ot at io n m ark s o m it te d)

. 7 { 39} The N ebraska Suprem e Court w as unpersuaded that th e f ather’ s susp icions th at 8 som eone e lse f

athe re d th e ch ild

j ust if ie d th e fa the r’ s a

ba ndon m en t of

the c hil d, 9 sta tin g: 1 0 In f

a c t , “ j u s t c au s e o r e x c u s e ” f

o r a p a r e n t ’ s f

a i l u r e t o m a i n t a in a 11 re la tio nshi p w itham ino r ch ild ha s ge ne ra lly

be enc onf

ine d to 12 ci rc um stanc es tha t are , a t l ea st in part, be y ond the co ntr ol of the pare nt. 13 But there is nothin g in the record in this ca se indicating that [the father ] 14 did

not ha ve the m eans or oppo rt uni ty to con fi rm

his sus pic ion s th at

[ the 15 ch ild ] w as not

his ch ild , at the hosp ita l, or an ytim e the re af te r. . . . O nly 16 afte r t he [s] tate filed a petition to term inate his rights , nearly [three] 1 7 y ear s a f

t e r [ t h e c h i l d ] w a s b o rn , d i d [ t h e f a t h e r ] a t t e m

p t t o ta ke a ny 18 re spon sib ili ty

f or [ the c hil d]

. T he obl iga tio ns o f pa rent ho od cannot be 19 set aside that easily , based o n n othin g m ore than m ere phy sical 20 ap pe ar ance or

unc onf irm ed sus pic ion s. W e w ill not

se t the bar so l ow 21 fo r res po ns ib le pa ren ta l i nv ol ve m en t. 22 Id

. at 5 27 (fo ot no te om it te d)

. 23 { 40} He re , C h i l d ’s p h ysi ca l ap p ea ra n ce d i d n o ts u g g es tt h at Fa t h erwa s n o tCh i l d ’s 24 f a t he r . T he pr oc e dur a l po sture of In re Chance J. a nd the c as e at bar al so d if

fe r in 25 certa in respects. T he In re Chance J. co u rt ’s d et erm ination that the father had13 Under N MSA1978 , S ection 40-11 A- 602(C) (2009) of th e N ewMexico 4 14 Uniform Pare ntage Ac t, §§ 40 -11A-101 to -903 (200 9), a m an w hose pa te rn ity of the 15 child is in questio n m ay bring a proceeding to adjudicate par entage, and “ the district 16 co urt sha ll or de r the ch ild a nd o the r de sig na te d pe rs ons to s ubm it to g en et ic te sti ng 17 if the r eque st f

or te sti ng i s su

ppor te d by th e swor

n st at em en t of

aparty to the 18 proc eed in g: ( 1) a lle gin g pa te rn ity a nd s ta tin g f

ac ts e sta bli shi ng a

r ea sona ble 19 pr oba bil ity of the r equis ite se xua l c ont ac t be tw ee n th e pe rs ons; or (2 ) de ny ing 20 pa te rn ity

a nd s ta tin g f

ac ts e sta bli shi ng a poss ibi lity tha t se xua l c ont ac t be tw ee n th e 21 persons, if any , did not result in th e conception of the child.” Sec tion 4 0-11A-502(A)

. 22 Fa the r, the refore , c oul d have br ough t a pr oc ee din g to a dj udi ca te his pare nta ge of 23 Ch ild , a nd i f he or

Mo the r ha d su

bm itt ed a sw or

n st at em en t e ith er

a lle gin g or

de ny ing 24 his pa te rn ity , the dis tr ic t c ourt w oul d have be enr equir ed to o rd er ge ne tic te sti ng. 25 Thu s, an all eg edor p ut at iv e fat he r can act to de te rm in e h is pa ren ta ge wit h a DNA 26 te st. 25 1 abandoned th e child was based in part on its consideration un der N ebraska lawthat 2 “ children born to th e parties in a m arria ge are presum ed legitim ate until proved 3 otherwise[. ] ” Id

. H er e, F athe r an d M oth er w er e not m ar ri ed to ea ch oth er

w he n C hil d 4 w as bor

n. H ow ev er , the c as e at

bar oth er w ise ha s para lle ls t o In r e Chance J. L ike the 5 fa the r in In r e Chance J. , F athe r ha d th e m eans and the opp ortun ity to co nf irm his 6 sus pici on that Ch ild

w as not his c hil d. F athe r al so d id n ot a tte m pt t o take 4 7 responsib ility

for Child until af

t er CYFD filed its petition alleging that Father had 8 abandoned Chi ld. W e see In re Chance J. as in s t ru ct i v e for its deter m ination that 9 ce rt ai nty

of kno w le dge of

pa te rn ity —i n p ar tic ular, pos iti ve D N A te sti ng— is n ot a 10 co nd it io n p rece de nt fora m an ’s ob li ga ti on to care fo r a ch il d t o a ris e. In re Chance J. 11 ind ic at es tha t, w he re af athe r is i n apos iti on t o ob ta in D N A te sti ng, if he has any 12 que sti ons ab out

his pa te rn ity

the n th e onus is on h im

to obt ai n D N A te sti ng tha t w ill1 6 F a t h e r t e s t i f i e dt h a th e a s k e dM o t h e r f o r aDN A t e s t d u r i n g h e r

p r e g n a n c y. 5 17 T his te sti m ony

is inc onsi ste nt w ithF athe r’ s othe r te sti m ony that he did not

kno w 18 ab out Ch ild or tha t C hil d w as his unt il Apr il 2016
. Bu t e ve n a ssu m ing the state m en t 19 wa s truthful, Father

never followed up on the request. O n the contrary , he proceeded 20 to b loc k c om

m uni ca tio n w ithMo the r on s oc ia l m ed ia

. F or the se r ea sons , w e do n ot 21 co nc lud e tha t M oth er ’ s in ac tio n f oll ow ing F athe r’ s c la im ed r eque st f or aD N A te st 22 to b e j ust if

ia ble c au se for

F athe r le av ing Ch ild

in the c ar e of

oth er s w ith out 23 co m m uni ca tio n or

pr ovi sio n f

or sup port. 26 1 confirm

non-paternity . F or these rea sons , w e reje ct Father ’ s argum ent that, as a m atter 2 of law , the la ck

of c er ta in kn owl ed ge of pate rn ity by m eans o f D N A te sti ng i s 3 j ust if ia ble c au se tha t ne ga te s ade te rm ina tio n of ne gle ct ba se d onaba ndon m en t. 4 2. F at he r’ s L ac k of C er ta in Kn owled ge of Hi s P at er ni ty Wa s N ot Ju st if iab le 5 C au se f

or A ba nd on in g C hi ld 6 { 41} Fa the r le ft

Ch ild w ithMo the r w ith out

pr ovi din g f

or Ch ild ’ s su

ppor t and 7 wi t h o u tco m

m u n i ca t i n g wi t h Ch i l dfo r a pe ri o d o f m o re t h an t h re e mon t h s . F at h er ’s 8 igno rance of Mother’ s failure to c are for Child does not constitute justifiable cause. 9 In ad dit ion , unde r the fa ct s of thi s ca se as es ta bli she d by cl ear an d c on vinci ng 10 ev ide nc e, w he re F athe r not onl y r ec ei ve d no tic e but

a cknow le dge d th at

he w as the 11 fathe r of Ch ild , the la ck of gr ea te r ce rt ai nty ba se d on D N A te sti ng r eg ar din g pa te rn ity 12 w as not

j ust if ia ble c au se tha t ne ga te s ade te rm ina tio n of aba ndon m en t. I f Fa the r in 13 fa ct harb or ed a ny doubt a bout Ch ild ’s p ate rn ity , he bor e the bur de n of ta kin g st ep s 14 to r es olv e the que sti on. Be ca use F athe r ne ith er

e sta bli she d he w as not

the f athe r nor 5 15 pro v i d ed the necessary car e to Child, the district court properly found that he had14 Fa the r al so arg ue s th at he “ is n ot r equir ed

to subm it to a sse ssm en ts o r at te nd 6 15 pa re nti ng c la sse s unl es s and unt il h e h as o t h er wi s e b ee n fo u n dg u i l t y o f n eg l ec t [, ]” 16 an d th eref

or e the dis tr ic t c ourt c oul d no t t ak e int o a cc ount F athe r’ s a ct ion s po st17 pe tit ionw he n f

ind ing tha t he ne gle ct ed

Ch ild . We need

not c onsi de r thi s arg um en t 18 because w e hold that th ere wa s clear and convin cing e vidence that Father abandoned 19 Ch ild be fo re CY FD f

ile d it s a buse a nd n eg le ct

pe tit ion

. 27 1 ne gl ect edCh il d b as edon ab an do nm en t. Cf . Cos me V. , 200 9- N MC A -0 94, ¶ 34 2 (“ U nde r ce rt ai n c ir cu m stanc es , pare nts c an not de m an d pare nta l r igh ts w ith out 3 pr o- ac tiv el y

f ulf ill ing the ir

obl iga tio ns as pare nts to care f or the ir c hil dr en . [ T he 4 f] ather did not pro-actively fulfill his ob ligation s . . . over a substantial period o f tim e, 5 an d th er e cam e a poi nt whe n [ CY FD ] appr opr ia te ly int er ve ne d, a nd s ough t and 6 obt a i n e dan e g l e c ta d

j u d i c a t i o n i m

p l i c a t i n g [ t h e f

] a t h e r . T h e n e g l e c td e t e rm i na tio n 7 as to [th e f]ath er was ba se d o n c le ar an d c on vi nc i n g e v i de nc e an d was pro pe r.” 8 (citation om itted)). 6 9 CON CLU SION 10 { 42} W e af

firm the district court’ s adjudication of neglect w ith respect to Father. 11 { 43} IT IS S O ORDERE D.

12

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ __ 13 HE N R Y M . BO HN HO F F , Ju dg e28

1 WE CO NCUR:

2

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ___ 3 JONA THA N B . S UTIN , Jud ge

4

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ___ 5 M IC HA EL E. V IG IL , Ju dg e