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 appeal of a mother (Mother) against the termination of her parental rights to her two children (Children) by the district court. The termination was based on findings of neglect. The appeal raised issues regarding due process violations, specifically alleging that the Children, Youth and Families Department (CYFD) improperly coached witnesses by providing them with a document containing their anticipated testimony and CYFD counsel’s opening and closing arguments before the termination hearing.

Procedural History

• District Court of Cibola County, Camille Martinez Olguin, District Judge: Ordered the termination of Mother's parental rights to Children based on findings of neglect.

Parties' Submissions

• Appellant (Mother): Argued that her due process rights were violated due to CYFD's improper coaching of witnesses, which compromised her ability to cross-examine witnesses and affected the consistency and credibility of their testimonies. Additionally, she contended that this due process violation constituted structural error, necessitating reversal of the termination order.
• Appellee (CYFD): Contended that the appellant failed to preserve the due process claim for appeal and argued that the proceedings did not violate the appellant's due process rights.

Legal Issues

• Whether the appellant's due process rights were violated by CYFD's alleged coaching of witnesses prior to the termination hearing.
• Whether any due process violation constitutes structural error requiring reversal of the termination order.

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's order terminating the appellant's parental rights.

Reasons

• The Court of Appeals, per Judge Stephen G. French, with Judges James J. Wechsler and J. Miles Hanisee concurring, held that the appellant was afforded due process and the proceedings were not fundamentally unfair. The court found that the risk of an erroneous deprivation of parental rights was low because the outline provided to witnesses was created from court reports and other documentation that were part of the record and available to the appellant's attorney. The court also noted that there was no indication that the information in the outline or the testimony was inaccurate or incorrect, nor was there evidence of coercion or false testimony by witnesses. Furthermore, the district court allowed for additional cross-examination and took measures to mitigate any potential unfairness, thereby providing sufficient procedural safeguards. On the issue of structural error, the court concluded that the proceedings were not rendered fundamentally unfair by the use of the outline, as the appellant was given opportunities to question and cross-examine witnesses, and the outline's contents were derived from available court reports and treatment plans. Therefore, the court affirmed the termination of the appellant's parental rights, finding no due process violation or structural error (paras 1-20).