State ex rel. Children, Youth & Families Dep't v. Keon H. (In re Anhayla H.)

Citation421 P.3d 814
Decision Date18 June 2018
Docket NumberNO. S-1-SC-36028,S-1-SC-36028
Parties In the MATTER OF ANHAYLA H., a child, State of New Mexico ex rel. Children, Youth and Families Department, Petitioner-Petitioner, v. Keon H., Respondent-Respondent.
CourtSupreme Court of New Mexico

New Mexico Children, Youth & Families Department, Kelly P. O’Neill, Children’s Court Attorney, Albuquerque, NM, for Petitioner

Law Offices of Jane B. Yohalem, Jane B. Yohalem, Santa Fe, NM, for Respondent

MAES, Justice.

{1} The New Mexico Children, Youth and Families Department (the Department) appeals from a judgment of the Court of Appeals reversing the district court’s termination of Father’s parental rights with regard to Child. The Court of Appeals concluded that the Department failed to make reasonable efforts to assist Father in remedying the conditions and causes of neglect and abuse that rendered Father unable to properly care for Child under NMSA 1978, Section 32A–4–28(B)(2) (2005). See State ex rel. Children, Youth & Families Dep’t v. Keon H. , 2017-NMCA-004, ¶ 1, 387 P.3d 313. We granted certiorari to review whether the district court’s determination that the Department made reasonable efforts to assist Father was supported by substantial evidence. We reverse the Court of Appeals opinion and affirm the district court order terminating Father’s parental rights.

I. BACKGROUND

{2} On February 20, 2013, Mother and Father took two-month-old Child to the hospital. Mother and Father reported that two days prior Father had been standing and rocking Child when he accidentally dropped her on the carpet. Child was in critical condition, having sustained multiple fractures, including twenty-three rib fractures

and four skull fractures in various stages of healing, facial bruising, liver lacerations, brain bleeding, and a possible detached retina. Doctors determined that the "volume, distribution, and severity of [Child’s] injuries [were] not consistent with a short fall in the home" and instead evidenced multiple incidents of blunt force trauma to Child’s head and body. Child is severely physically and mentally impaired as a result of the injuries.

{3} On February 25, 2013, the Department filed a petition with the district court alleging Child to be neglected and/or abused under NMSA 1978, Section 32A–4–2 (2009, amended 2017). Mother and Father entered no contest pleas to the neglect and abuse allegations on April 5, 2013. The adjudicatory and dispositional hearing was held on April 22, 2013. An initial judicial review hearing and three permanency hearings were held between May 20, 2013 and August 22, 2014. Father’s termination of parental rights hearing was conducted over two days, approximately six months apart, August 27, 2014 and February 6, 2015. Pertinent details of the various hearings are outlined below.

A. Initial Custody

{4} The Department took Child into custody on February 21, 2013 on allegations of neglect and/or abuse filed February 25, 2013. On February 26, 2013, the district court granted the Department continued custody of Child until further order. On March 7, 2013, a custody hearing was held; both Mother and Father were present. At the custody hearing, the court ordered Mother and Father to participate in psychosocial, psychological, domestic violence, substance abuse, and parenting assessments, as well as drug screens. Mother was also instructed to participate in an independent living skills assessment. The court further instructed Mother and Father to keep their attorneys and the Department’s permanency planning worker (PPW) apprised of their current addresses and phone numbers at all times and promptly notify them of any changes. The Department assigned Richard Gaczewski as the PPW for Child and Diane Drobinski as the PPW for Mother and Father.

B. Mediation and Plea

{5} On April 5, 2013, Mother and Father participated in a mediation conference and pled no contest to Child being neglected and/or abused under Section 32A–4–2 (2009, amended 2017). The factual basis for Mother’s and Father’s plea agreements was that Child was seriously injured while in the care of Mother, Father, and others, and "no action was taken by [Mother or Father] to protect [Child] from injury or seek medical care." Mother’s stipulated judgment and disposition also noted that "domestic violence in the home between [Father] and [Mother] in the presence of [Child] [had] impaired [Mother’s] ability to provide for the care, safety and supervision of [Child]."

C. Adjudication and Disposition

{6} At the adjudicatory and dispositional hearing on April 22, 2013, the district court adopted the Department’s proffered findings of fact and incorporated into its order the Department’s family treatment1 plan and predispositional study dated April 16, 2013. Although the court had ordered several assessments, the treatment plans recommended by the Department for Mother and Father called for initial psychosocial assessments on which other Department recommendations would be based. By the hearing date, Mother had completed her psychosocial assessment and the Department had developed personalized treatment recommendations for her. Father had not yet participated in his psychosocial assessment and thus only had the one item in his treatment plan.2

{7} The record indicates that at the time of the hearing, Father was homeless and did not have an address. Father was not returning phone calls from his PPW, Ms. Drobinski, nor did he show for a scheduled office visit. Father’s only visits with Child occurred prior to the adjudicatory hearing. The Department described one visit as "problematic" because Father had "angrily grabbed [Mother’s] cell phone from her hands" when they were having an argument. The district court ordered Mother and Father to "undergo psychological evaluations and treatment to be arranged by the [Department] or consistent with [the c]ourt’s order." The court also ordered Mother and Father to maintain regular contact with their attorneys and the PPW regarding the court-ordered treatment plans, court dates, and the case in general.

D. Initial Judicial Review Hearing

{8} The initial judicial review hearing was held on May 20, 2013. Mother was present by phone; Father was not present. The district court adopted the Department’s facts and proposed family treatment plan contained in the judicial review and/or permanency hearing report dated May 20, 2013. The Department stated in the report that it offered Mother and Father office visits with their PPW to conduct psychosocial assessments, create treatment plans, and coordinate supervised visits with Child. The court found that Mother was participating in her treatment plan and regularly visiting Child. Father, however, had made no efforts to comply with his treatment plan, had made no efforts to maintain contact with Child given his circumstances and his abilities, and had not been in contact with the Department since the plea hearing on April 5, 2013. Because Father was not present at the hearing, the court asked Father’s attorney if Father had been in contact with her. Father’s attorney stated that she called Father the day before and asked if Father had been in contact with the Department. She said that Father told her that he had not been in contact with the Department, that he had not started to engage in his treatment plan, and that the only thing he was doing was looking for a job.

E. Initial Permanency Hearing

{9} The initial permanency hearing was held on November 25, 2013. Mother was present; Father was also present, having been transported from the Metropolitan Detention Center (MDC). The district court adopted the Department’s facts and proposed family treatment plan contained in the judicial review and/or permanency hearing report dated November 25, 2013. The Department informed the court that Father was in custody due to a domestic violence incident with Mother. The Department also informed the court that Mother had been making good efforts at working her treatment plan but had recently stopped participating and that Father had made no efforts to participate in his treatment plan. Father’s attorney told the court that Father intended to take his domestic violence charge to trial, so she did not expect that case to be resolved prior to the neglect and abuse proceedings.

{10} During the hearing, Father’s attorney volunteered that Father had not been good about keeping in touch with her. In response, the court explained to Mother and Father the importance of maintaining contact with the Department. The court said, "When there’s a problem, you need to go to the Department and let the Department know ... [if you are] homeless ... don’t have a phone ... can’t get to the [urine analyses], ... whatever. The Department’s job is to make reasonable efforts to fix those things; so I’ll ask the Department to do that, and I’ll ask you to communicate with the Department so that [it will] do that." The court reminded Father that there were programs Father could complete while in custody and encouraged him to "keep that in mind and do what you can." Father responded, "Yes, sir." The court changed Child’s permanency planning goal from reunification to adoption, but ordered the Department to make reasonable efforts to implement the family treatment plan and ordered Mother and Father to make reasonable efforts to comply with the plan.

F. Second Permanency Hearing

{11} The second permanency hearing was held on February 24, 2014. Mother was present; Father was also present, having been transported from MDC. The district court adopted the Department’s facts and proposed family treatment plan contained in the judicial review and/or permanency hearing report dated February 24, 2014. In the report, Ms. Drobinski informed the court that Father had twice been scheduled for his psychosocial assessment but canceled both appointments, and that Mother’s visits with Child had been canceled after Mother’s domestic violence incident with Father. Further, Ms. Drobinski...

To continue reading

Request your trial
54 cases
  • State v. Yazzie
    • United States
    • New Mexico Supreme Court
    • January 24, 2019
    ...is relevant evidence that a reasonable mind would accept as adequate to support a conclusion." In re Anhayla H. , 2018-NMSC-033, ¶ 36, 421 P.3d 814 (quoting State ex rel. Children, Youth & Families Dep't v. Patricia H. , 2002-NMCA-061, ¶ 22, 132 N.M. 299, 47 P.3d 859 ). Contested facts are ......
  • Conservatorship C.G. v. McEachern
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of New Mexico
    • October 29, 2019
    ...cannot make [factual] findings of its own"); see also State ex rel. Children, Youth & Families Dep't v. Keon H. , 2018-NMSC-033, ¶ 55, 421 P.3d 814 (reversing this Court's decision where "[t]he Court of Appeals usurped the role of the district court by reweighing the evidence and failing to......
  • State ex rel. Children, Youth & Families Dep't v. Maisie Y. (In re Jupiter C.)
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of New Mexico
    • March 3, 2021
    ...before a parent's parental rights may be terminated." State ex rel. Children, Youth & Families Dep't v. Keon H. , 2018-NMSC-033, ¶ 42, 421 P.3d 814 (emphasis added).{29} Therefore, because a showing of active efforts is one of the grounds that must be established in support of ICWA terminat......
  • State ex rel. Children, Youth & Families Dep't v. Carmella M.
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of New Mexico
    • March 22, 2022
    ...mind would accept as adequate to support a conclusion." State ex rel. Child., Youth & Fams. Dep't v. Keon H. , 2018-NMSC-033, ¶ 36, 421 P.3d 814 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). "We will uphold the district court's judgment if, viewing the evidence in the light most favorabl......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
1 books & journal articles
  • Review of the Year 2019 in Family Law: Case Digests
    • United States
    • ABA General Library Family Law Quarterly No. 53-4, January 2020
    • January 1, 2020
    ...4, Winter 2020 in timely, clear, and unequivocal manner. Appellate Division decision afirmed as modiied. New Mexico. In re Anhayla H. , 421 P.3d 814 (N.M. 2018). The father entered a no-contest plea to allegations of neglect and abuse of his two-year-old child. The father was in considerabl......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT