AI Generated Opinion Summaries

This summary was computer-generated without any editorial revision. It is not official, has not been checked for accuracy, and is NOT citable.

Facts

• The case involves the New Mexico Children, Youth and Families Department (CYFD) taking custody of a child, Jayda’Mae S., in April 2016 and filing an abuse/neglect petition against the child's mother, Gina S., and the respondent-appellant, Michael H. (Father), who was alleged to be the biological father. The petition claimed that Father had abandoned the child, leading to neglect. Father contested the allegations, arguing that his lack of knowledge of the child's mother's neglect and his uncertain paternity negated the conclusion of abandonment and thus neglect.

Procedural History

• District Court, July 20, 2016: The court adjudicated that Father had neglected the child by abandonment, based on clear and convincing evidence that Father left the child in the care of the mother without provision for support and without communication for over three months.

Parties' Submissions

• Petitioner-Appellee (CYFD): Argued that Father is the biological father of the child and had abandoned the child by not providing support or establishing a relationship, which constituted neglect under relevant statutes.
• Respondent-Appellant (Father): Contended that his lack of knowledge of the child's mother's potential to neglect the child and his uncertain paternity until DNA testing negated the conclusion of abandonment and thus neglect.

Legal Issues

• Whether Father's lack of knowledge that the child's mother would neglect the child and his uncertain paternity until DNA testing negated the conclusion of abandonment and thus neglect under NMSA 1978, Section 32A-4-2(A)(2) and Section 32A-4-2(F)(1).

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's ruling that Father had neglected his child by abandonment.

Reasons

• The Court of Appeals, per Bohnhoff, J., with Sutin and Vigil, JJ., concurring, held that:
  Substantial evidence supported the district court's findings that Father had abandoned the child by leaving her in the care of the mother without support or communication (paras 23-26).
  Father's lack of knowledge of the child's mother's neglect did not constitute justifiable cause for abandonment, as parents have an affirmative obligation to ensure their child's well-being (paras 28-31).
  Uncertainty of paternity, in this case, did not constitute justifiable cause for abandonment. Father had sufficient notice of his paternity to give rise to an obligation to support or communicate with the child or to take steps to resolve any doubts regarding paternity (paras 33-41).