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 State of New Mexico, through the Children, Youth & Families Department (CYFD), against Krystle A., the mother of Joey A. and Lucas A. The CYFD alleged that the children were neglected due to the mother's actions or inactions. Specifically, it was claimed that the mother was aware of the risk and occurrence of sexual assault against the children and failed to take appropriate actions to prevent or mitigate this harm, thereby failing to provide the necessary parental care and control for their well-being.

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Petitioner-Appellee (CYFD): Argued that the children were neglected due to the faults or habits of the mother, specifically her awareness of the risk and occurrence of sexual assault against the children and her failure to engage, take action, or implement a safety plan to prevent or mitigate such harm.
• Respondent-Appellant (Mother): Contended that the district court lacked sufficient evidence to adjudicate the children as neglected, asserting that the court's order should be reversed due to a lack of a factual basis for its determination.

Legal Issues

• Whether the district court's finding of neglect was supported by substantial evidence of a clear and convincing nature.

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court’s adjudication of neglect.

Reasons

• The Court of Appeals, consisting of Judges Jacqueline R. Medina, Jennifer L. Attrep, and Zachary A. Ives, reviewed the case. The court found that the district court's adjudication of neglect was supported by substantial evidence. This evidence indicated that the children were without proper parental care and control necessary for their well-being due to the mother's faults or habits, specifically her knowledge of the risk and occurrence of sexual assault against the children and her failure to take preventive or mitigative actions. The court also noted that the mother's memorandum in opposition did not effectively challenge the analysis of evidence supporting the district court's finding nor did it demonstrate any prejudice resulting from the alleged due process violation. Consequently, the court was not persuaded by the mother's general assertion that the adjudication without a factual basis violated her due process rights, affirming the district court's decision based on the substantial evidence presented and the legal standards applied (paras 1-7).