Court Opinion

ID: 9855605
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-24 06:27:57.227226+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:36:15.945893
License: Public Domain

DONNELLY, Judge (specially concurring). I concur in the result reached by the majority, however, on other grounds. Evidence contained in the record indicates that the mother separated from her former husband in 1977 and left her three children in the care and custody of the children’s father. Thereafter, the father obtained a divorce in Texas from the mother. Under the divorce decree the father was awarded custody of the three minor children. On December 30, 1985, the Department of Human Services (Department), following a report by one of the children that the child had been sexually abused by the father, conducted an investigation and obtained an order in Cause No. 3243, Curry County Children’s Court, removing the children from the custody of the father and placing custody of the children in the Department. Thereafter, the father agreed to the entry of a consent degree placing custody of the children in the Department. The father was prosecuted and convicted of criminal charges of sexually abusing the children, and was subsequently sentenced to prison. The mother resided in Texas and was not joined in the original action filed against the father. On January 6, 1988, two years after the Department initially obtained custody of the children, the Department filed a petition in Cause No. 3638, Curry County Children’s Court, against both the father and mother alleging that (1) the father had physically, emotionally and sexually abused his children, and (2) that the mother had neglected the minor children. Thereafter both Cause No. 3243 and 3638 were consolidated on the motion of the Department. The trial court appointed a guardian ad litem to represent the children and following a trial on the merits in March 1988, the children’s court adopted findings of fact and conclusions of law determining, among other things, that the natural mother had neglected her three minor children and entered an adjudicatory and dispositional order on June 21, 1988 directing that the children remain in the legal and physical custody of the Department for a period not to exceed two years, and that the order of custody be subject to periodic review. The petition filed by the Department against the mother in January 1988, failed to comply with SCRA 1986, 10-303 and 10-305. Children’s Court Rule 10-303(A) provides in part: Time limits. If the child alleged to be abused or neglected is in the custody of the department or the department has petitioned the court for temporary custody, a custody hearing shall be held within ten (10) days from the date the petition is filed to determine if the child should remain or be placed in the custody of the department pending adjudication. Rule 10-305(C), further specifies that: Time limits. Petitions shall be filed: (1) within ninety (90) days from the date the complaint is referred to the department if the child is not in the custody of the department; or (2) within two (2) days from the date that the child alleged to be abused or neglected is taken into custody. If a petition is not filed within the time set forth in this paragraph, the child shall be released to his parents, guardian or custodian. [Emphasis added.] NMSA 1978, Section 32-l-38(D) (Repl. 1986), provides also in part that: If the child is an adjudicated abused child, the abused child shall not be returned to the respondent parent * * * without a hearing by the court to determine that the conditions in the home leading to abuse have been corrected and that it is now safe for the return of the abused child. An adjudicated abused child shall not be returned to the respondent parent, guardian or custodian on the sole basis that the custody orders have expired. During the effective period of the custody order, the children’s court attorney shall promptly schedule a hearing to determine whether the abused child may be safely returned to his parent, guardian or custodian or whether custody orders shall be extended for the child’s protection. The mother was never joined in the original custody action filed against the father and the petition alleging neglect filed by the Department against the mother does not allege any improper conduct by the mother prior to the time the Department received custody of the children. The motion to consolidate filed by the Department alleged that the mother had neglected the children after Cause No. 3243 was filed and at a time following removal of the children from the father’s custody. The Department has not alleged that the mother at any time abused the children. Promptly after the Department took custody of the children the mother made a demand that the children be relinquished to her; the demand was refused. The Department’s allegations of neglect against the mother were largely premised on the mother’s alleged failure to comply with a service plan imposed upon her after the mother had requested that the children be placed in her custody. Under the circumstances herein, the mother was entitled to custody of the children in 1986, and she was not legally obligated to comply with the terms of a service plan promulgated by the Department and which had not been approved or ordered by the court. Compare NMSA 1978, § 32-l-34(C) (Repl.1986). Under Rule 10-305(C), the Department was required to deliver custody of the children to the mother, or to file a timely petition against her alleging grounds indicating that the children should not be placed in her custody, within the time required by the rule. Rule 10-305(C) requires that the custodial rights of parents be promptly adjudicated. The Department’s failure to comply with the time limits imposed by Rule 10-305(C) required that the provisions of Rule 10-305(C) be implemented and that the children be released to the mother. Although the provisions of Rule 10-305(C) are dispositive of the mother’s right to custody of the children, the dispositional judgment of the children’s court placing custody of the children in the Department was also deficient because it failed to comply with the provisions of Section 32-1-34(A). The latter section provides that where a child is found to be neglected or abused, the trial court shall adopt findings of fact incident to its dispositional judgment determining: (1) the interaction and interrelationship of the child with his parent, his siblings and any other person who may significantly affect the child’s best interest; (2) the child’s adjustment to his home, school and community; (3) the mental and physical health of the individuals involved; (4) the wishes of the child as to his custodian; (5) the wishes of the child’s parent or parents as to the child’s custody. (6) whether there exists a relative of the child or other individual who, after study by the * * * department, is found to be qualified to receive and care for the child; (7) the availability of services recommended in the treatment plan * * *. (8) the ability of the parents to care for the child in the home so that no harm will result to the child; and (9) whether reasonable efforts were utilized by the * * * department to prevent removal of the child from the home prior to placement in substitute care and whether reasonable efforts were utilized to attempt reunification of the child with the natural parents. The findings adopted by the trial court were thus not sufficient to permit meaningful review. I join in the result reached by the majority determining that the judgment entered below was in error and that the children should be ordered to be returned to the mother.