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 termination of a father's parental rights over his children. The Children, Youth & Families Department (CYFD) was involved due to concerns about the children's neglect. The father contended that CYFD did not make reasonable efforts to assist him in remedying the causes of neglect, as required by law (paras 1-2).
Procedural History
- District Court of Lea County: Terminated the father's parental rights (para 1).
Parties' Submissions
- Appellant (Father): Argued that CYFD failed to make reasonable efforts to assist him, including not providing a treatment plan in Spanish, not offering referrals to services in Texas, and not providing virtual services or contact information for child protective services in Texas (paras 2-8).
- Respondent (CYFD): Asserted that they made reasonable efforts, including reviewing the case plan in Spanish with the father multiple times and attempting to contact him regularly, but were hindered by the father's lack of cooperation and unstable living situation (paras 6-8).
Legal Issues
- Did CYFD make reasonable efforts to assist the father in remedying the causes and conditions of the children's neglect? (para 2).
Disposition
- The New Mexico Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's decision to terminate the father's parental rights (para 10).
Reasons
Per Yohalem J. (Attrep and Wray JJ. concurring): The court found that the father failed to provide sufficient factual context or address the district court's findings that contradicted his complaints. The court emphasized that appellants must provide all relevant facts and cannot expect the court to search the record for them. The father's failure to directly attack the district court's findings meant those findings were accepted as facts on appeal. The court concluded that CYFD's efforts were reasonable given the father's lack of cooperation and unstable circumstances, and the father's complaints did not demonstrate error in the district court's decision (paras 3-9).