Court Opinion

ID: 9919177
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-01-17 17:07:10.519826+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:05:52.561933
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citation of unpublished decisions.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-41383

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

      Petitioner-Appellee,

v.

SPIRIT G.,

      Respondent-Appellant,

and

IVY H.,

      Respondent.

IN THE MATTER OF IRIS G.
and SCARLETT G.,

      Children.

APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF SAN JUAN COUNTY
Bradford J. Dalley, District Court Judge

Children, Youth & Families Department
Mary E. McQueeney, Chief Children’s Court Attorney
Santa Fe, NM
Kelly P. O’Neill, Children’s Court Attorney
Albuquerque, NM

for Appellee

Susan C. Baker
El Prado, NM
for Appellant

Richard J. Austin, P.C.
Richard J. Austin
Farmington, NM

Guardian Ad Litem

                               MEMORANDUM OPINION

HANISEE, Judge.

{1}     Respondent, Spirit G. (Father), appealed following the termination of his parental
rights as to Iris G. and Scarlett G. (Children). We previously issued a notice of proposed
summary disposition in which we proposed to affirm the underlying decision. Father has
filed a memorandum in opposition, which we have duly considered. Unpersuaded, we
affirm.

{2}    We set forth the relevant background information and principles of law in the
notice of proposed summary disposition. Rather than reiterating, we will focus on the
content of the memorandum in opposition.

{3}     Father continues to challenge the sufficiency of the evidence to establish the
reasonableness of the Children, Youth & Families Department’s (CYFD) efforts. As
described in the notice of proposed summary disposition, CYFD created a treatment
plan for Father and endeavored to engage Father in addressing his needs and
parenting deficiencies. [CN 4] Father nonetheless was both uncommunicative and
noncompliant, making no apparent progress in his treatment plan. [CN 5; 3 RP 590] We
therefore conclude that CYFD’s efforts were reasonable, particularly in light of Father’s
failure to participate. See State ex rel. Child., Youth & Fams. Dep’t v. Patricia H., 2002-
NMCA-061, ¶¶ 23, 28, 132 N.M. 299, 47 P.3d 859 (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 that “our job is not to determine whether CYFD did
everything possible; our task is limited by our statutory scope of review to whether
CYFD complied with the minimum required under law”).

{4}     Father now additionally contends that CYFD failed to make reasonable efforts to
place Children with their paternal grandmother in a permanent guardianship. [MIO 10]
We note that the district court entered a finding that Father did not provide any names of
fit and willing relatives for placement. [3 RP 78] Father has not contested that finding on
appeal. See Seipert v. Johnson, 2003-NMCA-119, ¶ 26, 134 N.M. 394, 77 P.3d 298
(“An unchallenged finding of the trial court is binding on appeal.”). In addition, as noted
in our proposed disposition, CYFD, at the outset of this case, received a report alleging
that the paternal grandmother in question exhibited inappropriate behavior toward one
of the Children. [CN 9; 1 RP 4, 15] To the extent Father points to his own beliefs and
testimony as support for his position that placement with the grandmother was
necessary and appropriate [MIO 13-14], we note that the district court found Father’s
testimony to be “generally self-serving and revisionist” and “generally unbelievable and
lacking credibility” [3 RP 580]. See Skeen v. Boyles, 2009-NMCA-080, ¶ 37, 146 N.M.
627, 213 P.3d 531 (stating that we defer to the district court’s determinations, “given
that we lack opportunity to observe demeanor, and we cannot weigh the credibility of
live witnesses”).

{5}     In any event, failure to consider an adult relative placement does not provide a
basis for overturning the termination of parental rights. See State ex rel. Child., Youth &
Fams. Dep’t v. Laura J., 2013-NMCA-057, ¶ 56, 301 P.3d 860 (indicating that where the
termination of parental rights was supported by clear and convincing evidence, failure to
investigate a particular relative for placement did not provide a basis for reversal). Even
if we were to assume that pursuit of relative placement could factor into the reasonable
efforts analysis, Father fails to explain how any shortcomings in CYFD’s placement
decisions in this case outweigh CYFD’s other efforts. As indicated in our calendar
notice, the termination of Father’s parental rights was supported by sufficient evidence
of a clear and convincing nature. [CN 2-5] Moreover, Children were placed with relatives
and Father has failed to identify any inadequacies in that placement. [CN 7-8; 3 RP 593]
See generally Laura J., 2013-NMCA-057, ¶ 61 (acknowledging that CYFD is required to
locate, identify, and consider relatives with whom Children might be placed); see also
State v. Mondragon, 1988-NMCA-027, ¶ 10, 107 N.M. 421, 759 P.2d 1003, superseded
by statute on other grounds as stated in State v. Harris, 2013-NMCA-031, ¶ 3, 297 P.3d
374 (stating that “[a] party responding to a summary calendar notice must come forward
and specifically point out errors of law and fact,” and the repetition of earlier arguments
does not fulfill this requirement).

{6}     We are therefore unpersuaded by Father’s assertion that the facts bearing upon
the district court’s decision would have been any different had CYFD made further
efforts to investigate placement with the paternal grandmother. We therefore conclude
that Father has not presented a persuasive argument or authority to show that relief is
warranted. See Laura J., 2013-NMCA-057, ¶ 57.

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

{8}    IT IS SO ORDERED.

J. MILES HANISEE, Judge

WE CONCUR:

JANE B. YOHALEM, Judge

KATHERINE A. WRAY, Judge