State Ex Rel. Children, Youth & Families Department v. Marlene C. (2011)
green
· 102 citation events
across 8 courts.
Showing the 15 strongest citers on record
(one row per citing case, strongest signal kept).
Treatment trajectory · 2011 → 2026 · click a year to view the case as of then
201120182026
Sort:
By significance ·
Most recent
green
State ex rel. CYFD v. Douglas B. (2023)
“The text of ICWA is the primary indicator of congressional intent, and to the extent that the language of the statute is clear and unambiguous, we must give effect to that language and refrain from further statutory interpretation.” Esther V., 2011-NMSC-005, ¶ 15 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).
Cf. Marlene C., 2011-NMSC-005, ¶ 18 (considering federally promulgated guidelines when interpreting ambiguities in ICWA).
green
State Ex Rel. CYFD v. Ruben C. (2021)
As our Supreme Court has observed, ICWA “is a remedial statute in that it was enacted to stem the ‘alarmingly high percentage of Indian families’ being separated by removal of children through custody proceedings.” Marlene C., 2011-NMSC-005, ¶17 (quoting 25 U.S.C. § 1901 (4)).
green
State ex rel. CYFD v. Marsalee P. (2013)
Marlene C., 2011-NMSC-005, ¶ 17 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). 4 ICWA AND THE ABUSE AND NEGLECT ACT Generally {13} We begin by briefly discussing ICWA and its relationship to the New Mexico Abuse and Neglect Act, which underlies the issues in this appeal.
Marlene C., 2011-NMSC-005, ¶ 17 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). 4 ICWA AND THE ABUSE AND NEGLECT ACT Generally {13} We begin by briefly discussing ICWA and its relationship to the New Mexico Abuse and Neglect Act, which underlies the issues in this appeal.
Marlene C., 2011-NMSC-005, ¶ 17 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).
green
State ex rel. CYFD v. Eric E. (2023)
See Marlene C., 2011-NMSC-005, ¶ 18 (describing the guidelines as “persuasive authority,” and relying on them to interpret ICWA); see also State ex rel.
green
State ex rel. CYFD v. Brian F. (2023)
Sys., 1991-NMSC- 061, ¶ 12, 112 N.M. 226 , 814 P.2d 94 (stating that New Mexico has a strong policy “that courts should facilitate, rather than hinder, the right to one appeal”); see also In re Esther V., 2011-NMSC-005, ¶ 37 , 149 N.M. 315 , 248 P.3d 863 (“Parents have a fundamental liberty interest in the care and custody of their children; due process of law is required before parents can be deprived of that right.”).
green
Philbert P. v. Douglas P. (2020)
See In re Esther V., 2011-NMSC-005, ¶ 14 , 149 N.M. 315 , 248 P.3d 863 (looking at the relationship between the ICWA and the state statute on abuse and neglect).
See In re 2 Esther V., 2011-NMSC-005, ¶ 25 , 149 N.M. 315 , 248 P.3d 863 (providing an 3 “[o]verview of New Mexico [a]buse and [n]eglect [p]roceedings” (emphasis 4 omitted)).
See In re Esther V., 2011-NMSC-005, ¶ 25 , 149 N.M. 315 , 248 P.3d 863 (providing an “[o]verview of New Mexico [a]buse and [n]eglect [p]roceedings” (emphasis omitted)).
green
Montoya v. Driggers (2014)
See In re Esther V., 2011-NMSC-005, ¶ 17 , 149 N.M. 315 , 248 P.3d 863 .
green
State v. Hall (2012)
See, e.g., In re Esther V., 2011-NMSC-005, ¶ 17 , 149 N.M. 315 , 248 P.3d 863 (“We interpret remedial statutes liberally to facilitate and accomplish their purposes and intent.” (internal quotation marks, brackets, and citation omitted)).
green
State Ex Rel. CYFD v. Brian F. (2023)
Sys., 1991-NMSC-061 , ¶ 12, 112 8 1 N.M. 226 , 814 P.2d 94 (stating that New Mexico has a strong policy “that courts 2 should facilitate, rather than hinder, the right to one appeal”); see also In re Esther 3 V., 2011 -NMSC-005, ¶ 37, 149 N.M. 315 , 248 P.3d 863 (“Parents have a 4 fundamental liberty interest in the care and custody of their children; due process of 5 law is required before parents can be deprived of that right.”).
green
Montoya v. Driggers (2014)
See In re Esther V., 201 l-NMS C-005, ¶ 17, 149 N.M. 315 , 248 P.3d 863 .