Court Opinion

ID: 9963085
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-04-24 16:07:41.545894+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:24:39.849573
License: Public Domain

This decision of the New Mexico Court of Appeals was not selected for publication in
the New Mexico Appellate Reports. Refer to Rule 12-405 NMRA for restrictions on the
citation of unpublished decisions. Electronic decisions may contain computer-
generated errors or other deviations from the official version filed by the Court of
Appeals.

          IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO

No. A-1-CA-41749

STATE OF NEW MEXICO ex rel.
CHILDREN, YOUTH & FAMILIES
DEPARTMENT,

      Petitioner-Appellee,

v.

CRYSTAL T.,

      Respondent-Appellant,

and

IVAN H. and EFRAIN A.,

      Respondents,

IN THE MATTER OF SABASTIAN R.,
ANAHII H., BELLA H., and SAMUEL H.,

      Children.

APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF CURRY COUNTY
David P. Reeb, Jr., District Court Judge

Children, Youth & Families Department
Mary E. McQueeny, Chief Children’s Court Attorney
Santa Fe, NM

for Appellee

Susan C. Baker
El Prado, NM

for Appellant
Kathleen M. Haynes Burns
Clovis, NM

Guardian Ad Litem

                               MEMORANDUM OPINION

DUFFY, Judge.

{1}   Respondent-Appellant Crystal T. (Mother) has appealed from the termination of
her parental rights. We previously issued a notice of proposed summary disposition in
which we proposed to affirm. Mother has filed a memorandum in opposition. After due
consideration, we remain unpersuaded. We therefore affirm.

{2}   The relevant background information and legal principles have been set forth.
We will avoid undue reiteration here, and instead focus on the content of the
memorandum in opposition.

{3}     Mother continues to challenge the sufficiency of the evidence to support the
underlying disposition, specifically and exclusively in relation to the reasonableness of
the Children, Youth & Families Department (the Department) efforts. [MIO 5, 11-14] As
we previously observed, evidence was presented that the Department created a
treatment plan that was designed to address Mother’s deficiencies, supplied many
referrals to service providers, and attempted to engage her over a period of roughly two
years; however, Mother’s compliance was poor and she failed to make meaningful
progress. [CN 3-5; MIO 6-10] Under the circumstances, we conclude that the
Department’s efforts were reasonable. See generally State ex rel. Child., Youth & Fams.
Dep’t v. Laura J., 2013-NMCA-057, ¶ 39, 301 P.3d 860 (“That [the m]other did not fully
participate in or cooperate with the services does not render the Department’s efforts
unreasonable.”); State ex rel. Child., Youth & Fams. Dep’t v. Patricia H., 2002-NMCA-
061, ¶¶ 23, 26, 28, 132 N.M. 299, 47 P.3d 859 (using the federal fifteen-month period
for time-limited reunification services as guidance in assessing the duration of
reasonable efforts under state law, explaining that “[w]hat constitutes reasonable efforts
may vary with a number of factors, such as the level of cooperation demonstrated by
the parent,” and observing that “our job is not to determine whether [the Department] did
everything possible; our task is limited by our statutory scope of review to whether [the
Department] complied with the minimum required under law”).

{4}     Mother speculates that the Department could have done more to investigate
possible relative placements. [MIO 13-14] However, where sufficient evidence has
otherwise been presented, “the Department’s failure to consider . . . a relative
placement does not provide a basis for overturning the termination of . . . parental
rights.” Laura J., 2013-NMCA-057, ¶ 56. Because Mother’s memorandum in opposition
contains neither persuasive argument nor authority to suggest that the Department’s
handling of potential relative placements had any real bearing on the termination of her
parental rights, we reject this as a basis for relief on appeal. See, e.g., id. (rejecting a
similar argument under analogous circumstances).

{5}   Accordingly, for the reasons stated in the notice of proposed summary
disposition and above, we affirm.

{6}    IT IS SO ORDERED.

MEGAN P. DUFFY, Judge

WE CONCUR:

KRISTINA BOGARDUS, Judge

ZACHARY A. IVES, Judge