Court Opinion

ID: 9952720
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-03-20 16:11:17.28033+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:43:51.930414
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citation of unpublished decisions.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-41366

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

      Petitioner-Appellee,

v.

KENYA C.,

      Respondent-Appellant,

and

CHARLES C.,

      Respondent,

IN THE MATTER OF KARAH C.,
OLIVIA C., NAIARI C., AVAH C.,
and ASYAH C.,

      Children.

APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF BERNALILLO COUNTY
William Parnall, District Court Judge

Mary E. McQueeney, Chief Children’s Court Attorney
Santa Fe, NM
Kelly P. O’Neil, Assistant Children’s Court Attorney
Albuquerque, NM

for Appellee

Susan C. Baker
El Prado, NM
for Appellant

Marjanovic Law, LLC
Milos Marjanovic
Albuquerque, NM

Guardian Ad Litem

                                MEMORANDUM OPINION

BOGARDUS, Judge.

{1}    Mother appeals the district court’s order terminating her parental rights as to
Children. We issued a notice proposing to summarily affirm, and Mother has responded
with a memorandum in opposition to our proposed analysis. We have duly considered
Mother’s response and remain unpersuaded. We affirm.

{2}    Mother’s response to our notice abandons contentions in her docketing
statement that the district court erred by refusing to consider a Substitute Care Review
Board (SCRB) report, and that alleges she was denied the effective assistance of
counsel. [DS 33, 35] See Taylor v. Van Winkle’s IGA Farmer’s Mkt., 1996-NMCA-111,
¶ 5, 122 N.M. 486, 927 P.2d 41 (recognizing that issues raised in a docketing
statement, but not contested in a memorandum in opposition are abandoned).

{3}    Mother’s memorandum in opposition, instead, focuses on contentions that she
should have been given more time to address the causes and conditions of Children’s
neglect and that the Children, Youth & Families Department (CYFD) should be required
to employ further efforts to help stabilize Mother’s mental health. [MIO 12-16] Mother’s
response to our notice does not dispute the facts upon which our proposed analysis
relied and does not demonstrate legal error. See State v. Mondragon, 1988-NMCA-027,
¶ 10, 107 N.M. 421, 759 P.2d 1003 (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), superseded by
statute on other grounds as stated in State v. Harris, 2013-NMCA-031, ¶ 3, 297 P.3d
374.

{4}     As described in greater detail in our notice, the record proper is replete with
CYFD’s extensive and lengthy efforts to assist Mother to make the necessary changes,
reunite the family, identify and meet the needs of Children, and maintain healthy bonds
among Children and between Children and Mother. [CN 5-7; 2 RP 345-46; 446-47; 3
RP 762-64, 780; 4 RP 789-90, 797-98, 867, 1024; 5 RP 1062; 6 RP 1061-62, 1076,
1392-93, 1406, 1441-42] We remain persuaded that CYFD’s efforts were more than
sufficient to satisfy its statutory obligation. See State ex rel. Child., Youth & Fams. Dep’t
v. Patricia H., 2002-NMCA-061, ¶ 28, 132 N.M. 299, 47 P.3d 859 (“[O]ur job is not to
determine whether CYFD did everything possible; our task is . . . to [determine] whether
CYFD complied with the minimum required under law.”); see also id. ¶ 27 (“CYFD is
only required to make reasonable efforts, not efforts subject to conditions unilaterally
imposed by the parent.”).

{5}     Our notice also acknowledged the successes in Mother’s early efforts, upon
which Mother relies heavily in her response opposing affirmance. [MIO 14-16] However,
the record is also clear that Mother became destabilized, stopped taking her medication,
and relapsed on drugs, and her efforts diminished considerably upon the return of
Charles C. in August 2020; thereafter, Mother became intransigent about her perceived
lack of need for services and remained noncompliant, uncooperative, hostile, and
unstable until the termination of her parental rights in July 2023. [6 RP 1397-1402,
1410-11, 1413-15, 1417] We remain persuaded that Mother’s refusal to continue her
efforts and engage in services does not require greater efforts from CYFD, and we are
not persuaded that additional, reasonable time and effort would have led to the changes
in the causes and conditions of Children’s neglect that were needed in this case. See
State ex rel. Child., Youth & Fams. Dep’t v. Laura J., 2013-NMCA-057, ¶ 39, 301 P.3d
860 (“That [the parent] did not fully participate in or cooperate with the services does not
render . . . [CYFD]’s efforts unreasonable.”); see also State ex rel. Child., Youth &
Fams. Dep’t v. Athena H., 2006-NMCA-113, ¶ 9, 140 N.M. 390, 142 P.3d 978 (“The
Abuse and Neglect Act requires the treatment plan to be reasonable, not a guarantee of
family reunification. Even with compliance, it may not achieve its goal.”). We emphasize
that “[b]ecause it is important for children to have permanency and stability in their lives,
termination proceedings should not continue indefinitely.” State ex rel. Child., Youth &
Fams. Dep’t v. Mafin M., 2003-NMSC-015, ¶ 24, 133 N.M. 827, 70 P.3d 1266.

{6}   For the reasons set forth above and in our notice, we affirm the termination of
Mother’s parental rights.

{7}    IT IS SO ORDERED.

KRISTINA BOGARDUS, Judge

WE CONCUR:

JACQUELINE R. MEDINA, Judge

KATHERINE A. WRAY, Judge