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 Children, Youth and Families Department (CYFD) petitioned that four children were abused and neglected by their parents, who are eligible for enrollment with the Choctaw Nation, making the children Indian children under the Indian Child Welfare Act of 1978 (ICWA). The district court terminated the parental rights of both parents following concurrent termination of parental rights (TPR) trials (paras 1-2).

Procedural History

• District Court of Doña Ana County: Terminated both parents' parental rights to the children after concurrent TPR trials (para 2).
• State ex rel. Children, Youth & Families Department v. Maisie Y., 2021-NMCA-023: Addressed the mother's appeal separately, reversing and remanding her case for a new TPR trial on grounds not directly related to the father's appeal but clarified the application of ICWA standards of proof in New Mexico (para 3).

Parties' Submissions

• Appellant (Father): Argued that the district court failed to apply the appropriate burden of proof under ICWA to terminate his parental rights and that CYFD did not meet ICWA’s active efforts requirement due to a lack of reasonable accommodation under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) (para 13).
• Appellee (CYFD): [Not applicable or not found]

Legal Issues

• Whether the presumption of retroactivity in civil cases applies to cases under the Abuse and Neglect Act (ANA) and if so, whether that presumption has been overcome here (para 4).
• Whether an exception to the requirement that issues be adequately preserved for review applies to the issues presented in Father’s appeal (para 4).
• Whether the holdings in Maisie Y. require reversal of the termination of Father’s parental rights, despite Father’s failure to preserve these claims of error (para 4).
• If reversal is required, what remedy is appropriate on remand (para 4).

Disposition

• The presumption of retroactivity in civil cases applies to cases under the ANA, and the presumption is not overcome in this instance (para 5).
• The nature of the fundamental rights at stake in this case, viewed in the context of ICWA, compels the court to exercise its discretion to review Father’s claims despite his failure to preserve the claims of error (para 5).
• Maisie Y. requires reversal of the termination of Father’s parental rights (para 5).
• The district court must hold a new TPR trial on remand (para 5).

Reasons

• The court concluded that the presumption of retroactivity applies to abuse and neglect cases, including those under the ANA, due to the significant interests at stake for children and parents. This presumption was not overcome by any of the Beavers/Chevron Oil factors. The court exercised its discretion to review unpreserved issues under the fundamental rights exception due to the case's implications on Father's fundamental right to parent his children. The court determined that the holdings in Maisie Y., which clarified the standards of proof in ICWA cases, must be applied retroactively to all ongoing cases pending in district court and on direct appeal as of the date Maisie Y. was published. Consequently, the court reversed the district court's order terminating Father's parental rights and remanded the case for a new TPR trial where the standards of proof set forth in Maisie Y. are to be applied (paras 15-54).