Court Opinion

ID: 9895787
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-11-08 17:08:23.540988+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:12:04.832379
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citation of unpublished decisions.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-41252

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

      Petitioner-Appellee,

v.

KARLA C.,

      Respondent-Appellant,

IN THE MATTER OF NOHA L.M.,

      Child.

APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF DOÑA ANA COUNTY
Grace Duran, District Court Judge

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

for Appellee

Cravens Law LLC
Richard H. Cravens, IV
Albuquerque, NM

for Appellant

Jennifer L. Munson
Las Cruces, NM
Guardian Ad Litem

                                MEMORANDUM OPINION

YOHALEM, Judge.

{1}    Mother appeals from the district court’s judgment terminating her parental rights
as to Child. We issued a calendar notice proposing to affirm. Mother has filed a
memorandum in opposition, which we have duly considered. Unpersuaded, we affirm.

{2}     In her memorandum in opposition, Mother continues to challenge that all the
issues of law and fact were not disposed of to the fullest extent possible. [MIO 14]
Specifically, Mother argues that the Children, Youth & Families Department (CYFD) “is
not allowed to shift the burden completely onto [Mother]” and that CYFD “has a duty to
dispose of all of the facts and issues of law to the fullest extent possible and that they
did not do so in this case.” [MIO 14-15] Mother, however, does not dispute any of the
facts or law upon which our proposed analysis relied. See Hennessy v. Duryea, 1998-
NMCA-036, ¶ 24, 124 N.M. 754, 955 P.2d 683 (“Our courts have repeatedly held that, in
summary calendar cases, the burden is on the party opposing the proposed disposition
to clearly point out errors in fact or law.”). Nor does she provide any new facts or citation
to authority to demonstrate that the issues of law and fact were not disposed of to the
fullest extent possible. See State v. Mondragon, 1988-NMCA-027, ¶ 10, 107 N.M. 421,
759 P.2d 1003 (explaining 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), superseded by statute on other
grounds as stated in State v. Harris, 2013-NMCA-031, ¶ 3, 297 P.3d 374. As such, we
conclude that the arguments asserted by Mother in her memorandum in opposition do
not impact our analysis or our proposed disposition of this issue.

{3}    Mother also continues to argue that there was insufficient evidence to support the
adjudication of neglect and that CYFD did not meet its burden of showing by clear and
convincing evidence that Child was neglected at the termination of parental rights
hearing. [MIO 10-14] However, Mother has not asserted any new facts, law, or
argument that persuade this Court that our notice of proposed disposition was
erroneous. See Hennessy, 1998-NMCA-036, ¶ 24; Mondragon, 1988-NMCA-027, ¶ 10.
Accordingly, we remain persuaded that the evidence presented supported the district
court’s adjudication of neglect and its finding of neglect in the order terminating Mother’s
parental rights.

{4}    Additionally, to the extent Mother seeks to raise a new issue that she did not
want to have her rights terminated and that she wanted to have another individual act
as a resource parent, we construe this as a motion to amend the docketing statement.
[MIO 13] See State v. Rael, 1983-NMCA-081, ¶¶ 7-8, 10-11, 14-17, 100 N.M. 193, 668
P.2d 309 (explaining that this Court will grant a motion to amend the docketing
statement to include additional issues if the motion (1) is timely, (2) states all facts
material to a consideration of the new issues sought to be raised, (3) explains how the
issues were properly preserved or why they may be raised for the first time on appeal,
(4) demonstrates just cause by explaining why the issues were not originally raised in
the docketing statement, and (5) complies in other respects with the appellate rules).

{5}      Mother asserts that she provided CYFD with two different people to be
investigated as a possible resource parent. [MIO 13] CYFD set up a meeting with the
first individual; Mother, however, failed to show up. [MIO 13] CYFD also set up a
meeting to investigate the second individual, but both Mother and the individual were
late and the meeting did not take place. [MIO 14] Mother contends that CYFD failed to
follow through to discover who either potential resource parent was. [MIO 13] Based on
the facts before us, however, we are unpersuaded that more was required of CYFD to
follow up on these potential resource parents. See State ex rel. Child., Youth & Fams.
Dep’t v. Patricia H., 2002-NMCA-061, ¶ 27, 132 N.M. 299, 47 P.3d 859 (“CYFD is only
required to make reasonable efforts, not efforts subject to conditions unilaterally
imposed by the parent.”); id. ¶ 23 (“What constitutes reasonable efforts may vary with a
number of factors, such as the level of cooperation demonstrated by the parent and the
recalcitrance of the problems that render the parent unable to provide adequate
parenting.”). Accordingly, we deny the motion to amend as not viable. See State v.
Moore, 1989-NMCA-073, ¶¶ 36-51, 109 N.M. 119, 782 P.2d 91 (explaining that this
Court will deny motions to amend that raise issues that are not viable), overruled on
other grounds by State v. Salgado, 1991-NMCA-044, 112 N.M. 537, 817 P.2d 730.

{6}    For the reasons stated in our notice of proposed disposition and herein, we affirm
the termination of Mother’s parental rights.

{7}   IT IS SO ORDERED.

JANE B. YOHALEM, Judge

WE CONCUR:

JENNIFER L. ATTREP, Chief Judge

JACQUELINE R. MEDINA, Judge