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 Charlie F. (Father) concerning his child, Eternity-Rain McD. The Department of Children, Youth & Families (Department) recommended a treatment plan for Father, which he partially complied with. Despite this, Father continued to test positive for alcohol and illegal substances, did not consistently participate in random urinalysis testing, and failed to maintain regular visits with the child.

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Petitioner-Appellee (Department): Argued that they made reasonable efforts to assist Father in alleviating the causes and conditions leading to the child's neglect.
• Respondent-Appellant (Father): Contended that the Department's efforts were unreasonable because they were directed at the wrong causes and conditions or were insufficient due to unique factors such as payment for services, and transportation and housing issues. Father also argued that the termination of his parental rights was based solely on his poverty, which he claimed was unsupported by New Mexico jurisprudence or the record below.

Legal Issues

• Whether the Department made reasonable efforts to assist Father in alleviating the causes and conditions leading to the child's neglect.
• Whether the termination of Father's parental rights was based solely on his poverty.

Disposition

• The motion to amend the docketing statement was denied.
• The termination of Father’s parental rights was affirmed.

Reasons

• The Court, led by Chief Judge J. Miles Hanisee, with Judges Jacqueline R. Medina and Megan P. Duffy concurring, found that Father's arguments regarding the Department's efforts and the basis of the termination of his parental rights (poverty) were unconvincing. The Court noted that Father did not contest the district court's findings regarding his partial compliance with the treatment plan and his continued substance abuse issues. It was emphasized that the Department's obligation is to comply with the minimum requirements by law, not to ensure that every possible effort was made. The Court also highlighted that reasonable efforts by the Department may vary based on several factors, including the parent's cooperation. The assertion that the termination was based on Father's poverty alone was found to be unsupported by both New Mexico jurisprudence and the record. The Court concluded that Father failed to demonstrate error on appeal and affirmed the termination of his parental rights based on neglect, not abandonment, as clarified by the district court's supplemental order (paras 1-8).