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 termination of parental rights of Darylyn C. to his two children, Ahvaeah C. and Avante C., by the district court. The children were taken into custody by the Children, Youth and Families Department (CYFD) in June 2016 due to the parents' drug use, untreated mental health issues, extensive criminal histories, lack of stability, chronic homelessness, and suspected physical abuse. The children were eight and nine years old at the time they were taken into CYFD's care (para 4).

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Petitioner-Appellee (CYFD): Argued that the conditions of neglect would not change in the foreseeable future despite its reasonable efforts, which included providing mental health services, domestic violence and substance abuse counseling, parenting classes, drug testing, and visits to the respondent (para 4).
• Respondent-Appellant (Darylyn C.): Challenged the sufficiency of the evidence regarding both the reasonable efforts made for reunification and the likelihood of change in the foreseeable future. The respondent also argued that poverty should not serve as the basis for termination and contested the credibility of witnesses alleging his continued drug use (paras 2, 4-5).

Legal Issues

• Whether the evidence was sufficient to support the termination of the respondent's parental rights on the grounds of neglect/reasonable efforts (para 3).
• Whether the district court properly concluded that the conditions of neglect would not change in the foreseeable future despite reasonable efforts from CYFD (para 4).

Disposition

• The New Mexico Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's judgment terminating the parental rights of Darylyn C. to his two children (para 7).

Reasons

• The decision was authored by Judge Julie J. Vargas, with Judges Jacqueline R. Medina and Zachary A. Ives concurring. The Court of Appeals found that the district court had sufficient evidence to terminate the respondent's parental rights. This conclusion was based on the children's custody due to neglect, the respondent's inconsistent participation in the services provided by CYFD, his refusal to submit to drug testing, and the testimony regarding his continued drug use. The court also considered the adoptability of the children and their best interests in affirming the termination. The court deferred to the district court's credibility determinations and emphasized that the primary focus of the decision to terminate parental rights is the physical, mental, and emotional welfare and needs of the children, including their likelihood of being adopted (paras 3-6).