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 determination by the district court that Noah S. (Child), son of Heather S. (Mother), is a "neglected child" under NMSA 1978, § 32A-4-2(G)(2) (2018). The Children, Youth, and Families Department (CYFD) filed an abuse and neglect petition against Mother following incidents including a domestic violence episode involving Jimmy A., unclean and unsafe living conditions in Mother's home, and concerns regarding Child's medical and educational needs. Child was in a residential program for severe ADHD treatment and had behavioral issues at school upon his return to Mother's care. Mother's home was found to be in a state of disarray with potential safety hazards during an inspection by CYFD, leading to the removal of Child and his siblings from the home.

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Petitioner-Appellee (CYFD): Argued that Mother and Jimmy A. had unresolved domestic violence issues, educationally and medically neglected Child, and allowed Child to live in substandard and hazardous housing conditions.
• Respondent-Appellant (Mother): Contested the determination of neglect, arguing the evidence was not of a clear and convincing nature to support such a finding and challenged the district court's discretion in refusing to allow impeachment of a witness with photographs during cross-examination.

Legal Issues

• Whether the district court's determination that Child was neglected is supported by substantial evidence of a clear and convincing nature.
• Whether the district court erred by refusing to allow Mother's counsel to use certain photographs during the cross-examination of a witness.

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's determination that Child is a neglected child.

Reasons

• The Court of Appeals, per Judge B. Zamora, found substantial evidence supporting the district court's finding of neglect, including Mother's failure to meet Child's medical needs by not immediately filling his ADHD medication prescription, failure to ensure Child's regular school attendance, failure to maintain a safe and stable home, and failure to protect Child from domestic violence. The Court also held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in prohibiting Mother from introducing photographic evidence due to failure to comply with disclosure requirements. The dissenting opinion by Judge Ives argued that New Mexico lacks a clear standard for determining child neglect under Section 32A-4-2(G)(2) and contended that the evidence presented did not meet the threshold of showing a substantial risk of serious harm to Child, thus disagreeing with the majority's affirmation of the district court's neglect determination.