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 establishment of a permanent guardianship for two children, Alyanna J. and Angel J. The mother, referred to as the Respondent-Appellant, challenged the sufficiency of evidence supporting the guardianship, particularly the statutory factor that reunification with the parent is not in the child's best interests due to the parent's inability or unwillingness to care for the child (paras 1-2).
Procedural History
- District Court, Taos County: The district court issued a decree establishing a permanent guardianship for the children (para 1).
Parties' Submissions
- Appellant (Mother): Argued that the district court's amended order did not reflect sufficient evidence to support the statutory factor that reunification is not in the child's best interests. She contended that the court should have given more weight to evidence favorable to her (paras 2-3).
- Appellee (Children, Youth & Families Department): [Not applicable or not found]
Legal Issues
- Was there sufficient evidence to support the establishment of a permanent guardianship, particularly regarding the statutory factor that reunification is not in the child's best interests?
Disposition
- The New Mexico Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's amended decree establishing a permanent guardianship (para 4).
Reasons
Per Baca J. (Hanisee and Attrep JJ. concurring): The Court found that the mother's memorandum in opposition did not adequately challenge the district court's findings with substantial evidence. The Court emphasized that a party challenging a finding must address all evidence, both favorable and unfavorable, and explain why the unfavorable evidence does not constitute substantial evidence. The Court also noted that it does not reweigh evidence but views it in the light most favorable to the prevailing party. The mother's arguments did not demonstrate any error in the district court's decision or the Court's proposed analysis (paras 2-4).