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 & Families Department (CYFD) took custody of a seven-year-old child due to neglect while the child was living with her mother and the father was in prison. After the father's release, he began but then ceased visitations with the child, leading to a hospitalization of the child due to distress from missed visits. The father was later reincarcerated. CYFD filed a motion to terminate the parental rights of both parents, alleging inability or unwillingness to provide proper care and that this situation was unlikely to change in the foreseeable future (paras 2-5).

Procedural History

• District Court of Doña Ana County: Found the child to be neglected and adopted a case plan for the parents. Later, relieved CYFD of its obligation to assist the father due to his lack of contact and inability to be located, and eventually terminated the parental rights of both parents (paras 2-6).

Parties' Submissions

• Petitioner-Appellee (CYFD): Argued that the father was unable or unwilling to provide proper parental care or control, despite CYFD’s provision of services and support designed to correct that inability or unwillingness, and that the situation was unlikely to change in the foreseeable future (para 5).
• Respondent-Appellant (Father): Challenged the sufficiency of the evidence to support the judgment of termination and raised four due process-related claims (para 1).

Legal Issues

• Whether there was sufficient evidence to support the district court’s judgment terminating the father's parental rights.
• Whether the father's due process rights were violated in four instances during the proceedings leading to the termination (paras 7-8, 15).

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment terminating the father’s parental rights to the child (para 1).

Reasons

• The Court of Appeals found substantial evidence supporting the district court's findings that CYFD made reasonable efforts to assist the father and that the causes and conditions of neglect were unlikely to change in the foreseeable future despite those efforts. The court also addressed the father's due process claims, including the admission of hearsay statements, lack of notice of a safe house interview, lack of notice of the futility finding, and the judge's review of prior hearing notes, and found no due process violations. The court concluded that the father had not demonstrated a reasonable likelihood that the outcome of the proceedings might have been different in the absence of the alleged procedural errors (paras 8-38).