State ex rel. Children, Youth & Families Department v. Tyyarri L., 020321 NMCA, A-1-CA-38965
| Opinion Judge | J. MILES HANISEE, CHIEF JUDGE |
| Party Name | STATE OF NEW MEXICO ex rel. CHILDREN, YOUTH & FAMILIES DEPARTMENT, Petitioner-Appellee, v. TYYARRI L., Respondent-Appellant, IN THE MATTER OF DEANDRE L., Child. |
| Attorney | Children, Youth & Families Department Rebecca J. Liggett, Chief Children's Court Attorney Santa Fe, NM Kelly P. O'Neill, Children's Court Attorney Albuquerque, NM for Appellee The Law Offices of Nancy L. Simmons P.C. Nancy L. Simmons Albuquerque, NM for Appellant Law Office of Alison Endicott-Qui... |
| Judge Panel | WE CONCUR: KRISTINA BOGARDUS, Judge, JACQUELINE R. MEDINA, Judge |
| Case Date | February 03, 2021 |
| Court | Court of Appeals of New Mexico |
APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF BERNALILLO COUNTY Marie C. Ward, District Judge
Children, Youth & Families Department Rebecca J. Liggett, Chief Children's Court Attorney Santa Fe, NM Kelly P. O'Neill, Children's Court Attorney Albuquerque, NM for Appellee
The Law Offices of Nancy L. Simmons P.C. Nancy L. Simmons Albuquerque, NM for Appellant
Law Office of Alison Endicott-Quinones Alison Endicott-Quinones Albuquerque, NM Guardian Ad Litem
MEMORANDUM OPINION
J. MILES HANISEE, CHIEF JUDGE
{¶1} Respondent Tyyarri L. (Mother) appeals from the district court's judgment terminating her parental rights to Deandre L. (Child). On appeal, Mother contends that the district court erred in terminating her parental rights. This Court issued a notice of proposed disposition considering Mother's arguments as raised in her docketing statement and proposing to affirm. Mother has now filed a memorandum in opposition to this Court's notice of proposed disposition, now particularly asserting that her statutory rights and her right to due process during the proceedings were violated. [MIO 15]. Having given due consideration to the arguments raised by Mother, this Court affirms the termination of her parental rights.
{¶2} In this Court's calendar notice, we proposed to conclude that there was sufficient evidence to support the district court's termination of Mother's parental rights. [CN 9] We proposed that the district court appeared to have considered all of the evidence presented regarding whether the causes and conditions that led to Child being brought into the Children, Youth and Families Department's (CYFD) custody had been alleviated, despite Mother's assertions that CYFD did not start visits with Child again following the failure to have a trial home visit. [CN 7, 8] We noted that it did not appear that the district court considered the failure to have a trial home visit as a dispositive finding, but considered all the evidence presented, including that Mother did well with her treatment plan initially, but that as of the January 2020 trial there was no evidence presented that Mother participated in or completed any services since November 2018. [2 RP 422-26; CN 7-8] Further, we also proposed to conclude that CYFD had met its burden of proof and that the evidence demonstrated that Mother failed to make sufficient progress in complying with her treatment plan. [CN 8-9] In sum, we proposed to conclude that there was clear and convincing evidence that the causes and conditions of neglect were unlikely to change in the foreseeable future and that termination of Mother's parental rights was in Child's best interests. [CN 9]
{¶3} In her memorandum in opposition, Mother cites to no authority and presents no new facts or arguments as to these proposed conclusions that persuade this Court that our proposed summary disposition was incorrect. See Hennessy v. Duryea, 1998-NMCA-036, ¶ 24, 124 N.M. 754, 955 P.2d 683 ("Our courts have repeatedly held that, in summary calendar cases, the burden is on the party opposing the proposed disposition to clearly point out errors in fact or law."); State v. Mondragon, 1988-NMCA-027, ¶ 10, 107 N.M. 421, 759 P.2d 1003 (stating that "[a] party responding to a summary calendar notice must come forward and specifically point out errors of law and fact[, ]" and the repetition of earlier arguments does not fulfill this requirement), superseded by statute as stated in State v. Harris, 2013-NMCA-031, ¶ 3, 297 P.3d 374.
{¶4} Now, for the first time, in her memorandum in opposition, Mother contends that the time line and procedures followed by the district court and CYFD denied her due process and the protections of the Abuse and Neglect Act. NMSA 1978, §§ 32A-4-1 to -35 (1993, as amended through 2019). [MIO 8] Mother asserts that several hearings were untimely held pursuant to the statutory framework. [MIO 11-12] Mother argues that the process adopted by CYFD and "supported by" the district court of "holding Child in limbo beyond the statutory deadlines for permanency review and orders, violated Mother's statutory rights pursuant to the Abuse and Neglect Act, as well as her [d]ue [p]rocess rights." [MIO 15] She claims that CYFD "was allowed to continue to hold Child in custody in a 'wait and see' pattern, when the case should have been dismissed unless [CYFD] had been ready to move to terminate parental rights on the timetable mandated by statute." [MIO 15] Mother acknowledges that "[t]here is no case specifically on point on the issue of holding a child in custody beyond the statutory deadlines for a change in plan or dismissal." [MIO 16] However, Mother points this Court to State ex rel. Children, Youth & Families Dep't v. Benjamin O.,...
To continue reading
Request your trial