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 ex rel. Children, Youth & Families Department (CYFD) against Francis Y. a/k/a Russell Y., and Becky B. a/k/a Rebecca B., concerning the welfare of two children, Raven Y. and Winter Y. The district court adjudicated the children as abused or neglected under the Indian Child Welfare Act of 1978 (ICWA), based on evidence including the testimony of an ICWA expert. The father, Francis Y., appealed the decision, challenging the qualifications of the ICWA expert and the sufficiency of evidence regarding CYFD's efforts and the children's status as abused or neglected.

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Petitioner-Appellee (CYFD): Argued that the children were abused or neglected and that the district court's findings were supported by the evidence, including the testimony of an ICWA expert.
• Respondent-Appellant (Father): Contended that the ICWA expert should not have been allowed to testify on the potential emotional or physical damage to the children if they remained in his custody and that the district court erred in its reliance on the expert's testimony. Also argued that the evidence was insufficient to support the conclusion that CYFD made active efforts to prevent the breakup of the Indian family and that the children were abused or neglected.

Legal Issues

• Whether the district court erred in permitting the ICWA expert to testify regarding the potential emotional or physical damage to the children if they remained in their father's custody.
• Whether the district court's findings, based in part on the testimony of the ICWA expert, were erroneous.
• Whether the evidence was sufficient to support the district court's conclusion that CYFD made active efforts to prevent the breakup of the Indian family.
• Whether the evidence was sufficient to support the conclusion that the children were abused and neglected.

Disposition

• The motion to amend to add new issues was denied.
• The district court’s order adjudicating the children as abused or neglected was affirmed.

Reasons

• Judges Kristina Bogardus, J. Miles Hanisee, and Gerald E. Baca concurred in the decision. The court found that the father's challenges regarding the ICWA expert's qualifications and testimony were not persuasive and were not sufficiently preserved for appeal. The expert, Mr. Applegate, was deemed qualified based on his extensive experience and training related to ICWA cases, and his involvement in the case provided a sufficient basis for his testimony (paras 5-7). The court also determined that the district court's findings on CYFD's active efforts and the children's status as abused or neglected were supported by sufficient evidence, including testimony beyond Mr. Applegate's. The court noted that the father's refusal to cooperate with CYFD and his obstructionist behavior contributed to the findings of neglect and abuse (paras 11-13). The court concluded that the father's arguments did not demonstrate any reversible error in the district court's decision.