State ex rel. Children, Youth & Families Dep't v. Mercer-Smith
| Decision Date | 20 December 2018 |
| Docket Number | NO. S-1-SC-35427,S-1-SC-35427 |
| Citation | 434 P.3d 930 |
| Parties | STATE OF NEW MEXICO EX REL. CHILDREN, YOUTH AND FAMILIES DEPARTMENT, Petitioner-Petitioner, v. Janet MERCER-SMITH and James Mercer-Smith, Respondents-Respondents. |
| Court | New Mexico Supreme Court |
Walz and Associates, Jerry A. Walz, Albuquerque, NM, for Petitioner.
Comeau, Maldegen, Templeman & Indall, LLP, Larry D. Maldegen, William Phelps Templeman, Stephen J. Lauer, Santa Fe, NM, Dan Cron Law Firm, P.C., Daniel Robert Cron, Santa Fe, NM, for Respondents.
{1} While the parties in this case litigated contempt proceedings over the course of seven years, the children at the center of the case aged out of the system and became peripheral to a nearly $4,000,000 judgment in favor of Respondents Janet and James Mercer-Smith (the Mercer-Smiths), who had pleaded no contest to allegations of abuse against their two minor daughters Julia and Rachel. This case was initiated in 2001 as an abuse and neglect proceeding and turned into a dispute over whether the Children, Youth and Families Department (CYFD) had violated the district court’s decision that Julia and Rachel could not be placed with former employees of a group home where they had been residing. After protracted litigation, the district court held CYFD in contempt for violating its placement decision and, almost four years later, imposed the sanction for the violation, ordering CYFD to pay the Mercer-Smiths more than $1,600,000 in compensatory damages and more than $2,000,000 in attorney fees and costs. The award was based on the district court’s determination that the violation of the placement decision resulted in the loss of the Mercer-Smiths’ chance of reconciliation with Julia and Rachel. We hold that the purpose for which the district court exercised its contempt power was not remedial in nature and therefore cannot be upheld as a valid exercise of civil contempt power. Accordingly, we reverse the contempt order and vacate the award in its entirety.
{2} This case began in early 2001 and was not fully resolved until January 2012, when the final judgment was entered. The record indicates that nearly every aspect of the proceeding was heavily litigated and highly contentious. What follows is the background information most relevant to the issues before this Court. Additional factual development will be done, as needed, in the context of our discussion of those issues.
{3} In February 2001, James (Father) and Janet (Mother) Mercer-Smith’s three daughters—Julia, 13; Rachel, 12; and Alison, 8—were taken into CYFD custody based on allegations of sexual abuse of Julia and Rachel at the hands of Father. The abuse and neglect petition also alleged that Mother knew or should have known of the abuse but failed to protect her daughters.
{4} Six months later on August 30, 2001, Father pleaded no contest to allegations that he "touched his children Julia and Rachel in a way that made them feel uncomfortable and which they reasonably perceived as sexual." Mother pleaded no contest to allegations that she "knew or should have known that her husband ... touched their children Julia and Rachel in a way that made them feel uncomfortable and which they reasonably perceived as sexual and she did not take reasonable steps to protect the children from further harm." Based on the pleas, the district court entered a judgment and disposition adjudicating the children to be abused pursuant to NMSA 1978, Section 32A-4-2(B)(2) (1999). The Mercer-Smiths were ordered to comply with a treatment plan approved by the district court. Among other things, the plan contemplated family therapy and visitation, if appropriate, at the daughters’ discretion. Although both Julia and Rachel expressed that they had no desire to return to their parents’ home, the goal of the treatment plan at that time was reunification. Alison, the youngest daughter, was returned to her parents’ custody in November 2001 and was later dismissed from the case.
{5} The initial judicial review hearing was held on November 7, 2001. The district court found that it was in Julia’s and Rachel’s best interests to remain in the legal custody of CYFD. The court ordered CYFD to obtain a report from Julia’s psychiatrist and Rachel’s therapist in anticipation of the next hearing, addressing "why Julia and Rachel are refusing to go home and not wanting visits and what is in their best interests in those regards." The order memorializing the November 7, 2001 hearing was filed on March 21, 2002. At the next hearing on December 10, 2001, the district court ordered that Julia and Rachel begin individual sessions with Dr. Charles Glass, a psychologist retained by CYFD, who would submit a detailed report for the next hearing regarding their progress in therapy. The order memorializing the December 10, 2001 hearing was filed on March 22, 2002.
{6} The district court also ordered Julia and Rachel to participate in mediation with the Mercer-Smiths, which occurred on April 5, 2002. The mediator’s memorandum of understanding submitted to the court shortly thereafter reflects that the mediation process had yet to be completed. Therefore, on April 9, 2002, the parties stipulated that the "permanency plan should remain reunification until the mediation process is completed by the parties." However, in May 2002, CYFD filed a report with the district court indicating that reunification was "no longer a viable plan." The report also recommended that individual sessions between the daughters and Dr. Glass cease due, in part, to a breach of confidentiality by Dr. Glass. On July 11, 2002, CYFD filed another report with the court, reiterating its position that reunification was "no longer a viable plan." The report also indicated that the mediation process had been completed, "with no change in the prognosis for reunification" and recommended a change in the permanency plan to planned permanent living arrangements (PPLA) for Julia and Rachel. According to the social worker, the recommended change to PPLA was a result of the Mercer-Smiths’ failure to "address the issues that have been at hand since the inception of this case." Specifically, Father refused to acknowledge the factual basis of his no contest plea and instead focused on convincing case workers that "he [was] not responsible for any problems that his family has experienced and that the girls’ allegations of sexual abuse [were] the result of confusion and false memories that have been created by one or more of their therapists." Additionally, Mother purportedly took the position that Father was not guilty of the abuse alleged by Julia and Rachel. The social worker reported that Julia and Rachel "continue to be adamant about not wanting to reunify with their parents." At that time, CYFD reported that Julia and Rachel were living at the Casa Mesita Group Home in Los Alamos.
{7} At a highly contentious hearing on August 15, 2002, the attorney for the Mercer-Smiths insisted that reunification had not been successfully attempted. The district court noted that all attempts to get Julia and Rachel to participate in therapy had failed and that there had been no progress at all toward reunification. Counsel for CYFD stated that Julia and Rachel did not want any involvement with their parents because they felt that they were being accused of wrongdoing and because their parents had not taken responsibility for the abuse inflicted upon them. The district court acknowledged that the daughters’ best interests and "perspective" were "paramount." Counsel for the Mercer-Smiths asked the court to order that Julia and Rachel participate in ten family therapy sessions for the purpose of resolving issues between them and the Mercer-Smiths. The guardian ad litem (GAL) insisted that Julia and Rachel were "adamantly opposed to continued therapy" and reiterated CYFD’s position—Julia and Rachel felt as though they were on trial and the proceedings had become about what they had done, rather than the abuse their parents had inflicted. Counsel for CYFD stated that it was CYFD’s position that it was not in Julia’s and Rachel’s best interests to go forward with family therapy since the purpose of it was unclear, given that they were adamant about not wanting to reunify with the Mercer-Smiths. Counsel for CYFD also reminded the court that the summary treatment plan adopted on August 30, 2001, specified that Julia and Rachel would not be required to visit with the Mercer-Smiths unless they wished to do so and that reunification would occur only "if appropriate." Julia and Rachel were permitted to address the court and read statements that they had prepared. Excerpts from those statements follow.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Bd. of Cnty. Comm'rs v. N.M. Taxation & Revenue Dep't
...the order, held the Department in civil contempt and imposed compensatory sanctions on it. See State of N.M. ex rel. Children, Youth & Families Dep't v. Mercer-Smith, 2019-NMSC-005, ¶ 20, 434 P.3d 930 (noting that the purpose of civil contempt, as distinguished from criminal contempt, is to......
-
State ex rel. Children, Youth & Families Dep't v. Jeremy K. (In re Joshua N.)
...State ex rel. Children, Youth, & Families Dep't. v. Mercer-Smith, 2015-NMCA-093, ¶ 29, 356 P.3d 26, revd on other grounds by 2019-NMSC-005, 434 P.3d 930. Therefore, the question for this Court is whether the district court's finding that the conditions and causes of Child's neglect were unl......
-
State ex rel. Children, Youth & Families Dep't v. Randall T. (In re E.C.)
...v. Mercer-Smith, 2015-NMCA-093, ¶ 29, 356 P.3d 26 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted), overruled on other grounds, 2019-NMSC-005, 434 P.3d 930. The district court's conclusion that Father failed to maintain consistent contact with the Department is supported by clear and convinc......
-
State ex rel. Children, Youth & Families Dep't v. Donald G. (In re Thomas G.), A-1-CA-37500
...to certain findings of fact and noting that "[a]ny unchallenged findings are binding on appeal"), rev'd on other grounds, 2019-NMSC-005, 434 P.3d 930. Considering the totality of the circumstances, including CYFD's placement of Children with family in accordance with legislative intent, Fat......