State ex rel. Children, Youth & Families Dep't v. Paul R., A-1-CA-39891

CitationA-1-CA-39891
Case DateSeptember 21, 2022
CourtCourt of Appeals of New Mexico

STATE OF NEW MEXICO ex rel. CHILDREN, YOUTH & FAMILIES DEPARTMENT, Petitioner-Appellee,
v.

PAUL R., Respondent-Appellant,

and TYIA F., Respondent, and SARA K. and TRAVIS K., Intervenors, IN THE MATTER OF AALIYIAH F., Child.

No. A-1-CA-39891

Court of Appeals of New Mexico

September 21, 2022


Corrections to this opinion/decision not affecting the outcome, at the Court's discretion, can occur up to the time of publication with NM Compilation Commission. The Court will ensure that the electronic version of this opinion/decision is updated accordingly in Odyssey.

APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF BERNALILLO COUNTY William E. Parnall, District Judge

Children, Youth & Families Department Mary McQueeney, Chief Children's Court Attorney Santa Fe, NM Kelly P. O'Neill, Children's Court Attorney Albuquerque, NM for Appellee

1

Susan C. Baker El Prado, NM for Appellant

Richmond L. Neely Albuquerque, NM for Intervenors Deborah Gray Law, LLC Deborah Gray Albuquerque, NM Guardian Ad Litem

MEMORANDUM OPINION

MEGAN P. DUFFY, Judge

{¶1} Father appeals from the termination of his parental rights to Child. We issued a calendar notice proposing to affirm. Father has filed a memorandum in opposition that includes a new argument we construe as a motion to amend the docketing statement, both of which we have duly considered. Unpersuaded, we affirm. {2} Father continues to argue that the district court erred in finding that there was clear and convincing evidence presented to support the termination of his parental rights to Child. [MIO 9-13] Specifically, Father asserts that he had been following his treatment plan and although there was a domestic violence incident in the summer of 2020 between himself and Mother, because he and Mother separated, the domestic violence incidents were no longer a threat to Child. [MIO 13] Father,

2

however, does not dispute any of the other facts relied upon in the calendar notice- that Father has had ongoing issues with substance abuse and untreated mental health issues; Father's disinterest in participating with the permanency planning workers; Father failing to complete drug tests and other recommended appointments and psychological evaluations; and that Father has minimized the issues that brought Child into the custody of the Children, Youth, and Families Department (CYFD). [CN 3-6] Even assuming, as Father asserts, domestic violence was the only reason CYFD decided against Child's reunification with Father [MIO 12], there was other evidence presented at the hearing relied upon in the proposed disposition to support the termination of parental rights, which Father has not pointed to as an error in fact. 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."); cf. State ex rel. Child., Youth & Fams. Dep't v. Brandy S., 2007-NMCA-135, ¶ 25, 142...

To continue reading

Request your trial

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