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

• A father's parental rights were terminated under NMSA 1978, Section 32A-4-28 (2005), for abandonment of his child, Grace H., born from an extramarital affair. After the child's birth, the father saw her a few times a week for the first three months. Subsequently, the mother moved away, and the father made some efforts to stay in contact but did not visit. The father lost contact from 2008 to February 2011. In 2008, the Children, Youth and Families Department (CYFD) took custody of the child due to a referral concerning physical abuse. The father contacted CYFD in April 2010 after learning the child was in custody, expressing a desire for custody and visitation, which CYFD declined, proceeding with adoption and termination of his parental rights (paras 4-7).

Procedural History

• District Court, November 8, 2010: The district court concluded it was in the child's best interests to terminate the father's parental rights under Section 32A-4-28(B)(1) for abandonment (para 27).
• Court of Appeals, March 25, 2013: Affirmed the district court's decision, concluding that the district court properly terminated the father’s parental rights under Section 32A-4-28(B)(1) without needing to find that CYFD made reasonable efforts to reunite the family (para 32).

Parties' Submissions

• Respondent-Petitioner (Father): Argued that the statute is ambiguous regarding when abandonment can be used as a basis for termination of parental rights. Asserted that CYFD pursued a theory of abandonment without establishing reasonable efforts to cure the causes of neglect as required by law (para 2).
• Petitioner-Respondent (CYFD): Defended the termination of parental rights under Section 32A-4-28(B)(1) for abandonment, asserting that the father's lack of contact and support for the child constituted abandonment. Argued that it was unnecessary to make a finding that CYFD had made reasonable efforts to reunite the family in order to terminate the father’s parental rights under this section (para 32).

Legal Issues

• Whether the statute NMSA 1978, Section 32A-4-28 is ambiguous with respect to when abandonment may be used as a basis for termination of parental rights (para 3).
• Whether the father's parental rights were improperly terminated under Section 32A-4-28(B)(1) without establishing that CYFD made reasonable efforts to cure the causes of neglect (para 2).

Disposition

• The Supreme Court of the State of New Mexico reversed the district court’s ruling that terminated the father's parental rights under Section 32A-4-28(B)(1) for abandonment (para 3).

Reasons

• The Supreme Court found that Section 32A-4-28 is ambiguous regarding the use of abandonment as a basis for termination of parental rights. It agreed with the father that the ambiguity led to the improper termination of his parental rights. The Court held that Subsection (B)(1) should be used when no parent is present with whom CYFD could work towards reunification prior to termination. In cases where a parent is present and willing to participate prior to termination, as the father had done, termination should proceed under Subsection (B)(2) for abuse and neglect. The Court concluded that the father's rights were improperly terminated under Subsection (B)(1) without giving him the opportunity for assessment and treatment that he should have been afforded under Subsection (B)(2) (paras 33-55).