clear and convincing standard in New Mexico

2023Dep’t v. Tammy S., 1999-NMCA- 009, ¶ 13, 126 N.M. 664 , 974 P.2d 158 (“This Court will uphold the termination if, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the judgment, a fact[-]finder could properly determine that the clear and convincing standard was met.”). {5} Mother next argues that CYFD failed to meet its burden to show that it made reasonable efforts to assist her in alleviating the causes and conditions that rendered her unable to adequately parent her child. [MIO 16-18] We disagree.

2023Dep’t v. Tammy S., 1999-NMCA- 009, ¶ 13, 126 N.M. 664 , 974 P.2d 158 (“This Court will uphold the termination if, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the judgment, a fact[-]finder could properly determine that the clear and convincing standard was met.”). {5} Mother next argues that CYFD failed to meet its burden to show that it made reasonable efforts to assist her in alleviating the causes and conditions that rendered her unable to adequately parent her child. [MIO 16-18] We disagree.

2008We will uphold the district court’s judgment “if, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the judgment, a fact finder could properly determine that the clear and convincing standard was met.” In re Candice Y., 2000-NMCA-035, ¶ 10 , 128 N.M. 813 , 999 P.2d 1045 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).

2008We will uphold the district court’s judgment “if, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the judgment, a fact finder could properly determine that the clear and convincing standard was met.” In re Candice Y., 2000-NMCA-035, ¶ 10 , 128 N.M. 813 , 999 P.2d 1045 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).

2007Therefore, our standard of review is “whether, viewing the evidence in a light most favorable to affirming the termination of Mother’s parental rights, the trial court could properly determine that the clear and convincing standard was met.” Id.

2006Therefore, we must determine “whether, viewing the evidence in a light most favorable to affirming the termination of [Father’s] parental rights, the [district] court could properly determine that the clear and convincing standard was met.” Id.

2022The state, far from being bound 5 by all the requirements of the Constitution and the rules of evidence, may rely on 6 “all helpful and reliable information” at its disposal, Torrez, 2018-NMSC-005 , ¶ 7 103, to establish to the court’s satisfaction, under the clear and convincing standard, 8 that no conditions of release will reasonably protect the public against a defendant’s 9 future dangerousness.

2022The state, far from being bound by all the requirements of the Constitution and the rules of evidence, may rely on “all helpful and reliable information” at its disposal, Torrez, 2018-NMSC-005, ¶ 103 , to establish to the court’s satisfaction, under the clear and convincing standard, that no conditions of release will reasonably protect the public against a defendant’s future dangerousness.

2022“We will uphold the district court’s judgment if, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the judgment, a fact finder could properly determine that the clear and convincing standard was met.” Alfonso M.-E., 2016-NMCA-021 , ¶ 26 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).

2022“We will uphold the district court’s judgment if, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the judgment, a fact finder could properly determine that the clear and convincing standard was met.” Alfonso M.-E., 2016-NMCA-021 , ¶ 26 (internal quotation marks and citation 7 omitted).

2022Dep’t v. Amanda H., 2007-NMCA-029, ¶ 22 , 141 N.M. 299 , 154 P.3d 674 ; see also NMSA 1978, § 32A- 4-20(H) (2014) (establishing the clear and convincing standard for adjudications of abuse and neglect).

2022Dep’t v. Amanda H., 2007-NMCA-029, ¶ 22 , 141 N.M. 299 , 154 P.3d 674 ; see also NMSA 1978, § 32A- 4-20(H) (2014) (establishing the clear and convincing standard for adjudications of abuse and neglect).

2020Children, Youth & Families Dep’t v. Lance K., 2009-NMCA-054, ¶ 16 , 146 N.M. 286 , 209 P.3d 778 (alteration, internal quotation marks, and citation omitted). {7} On appeal, this Court “will uphold the district court’s judgment if, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the judgment, [the district court] could properly determine that the clear and convincing standard was met.” State ex rel.

2020Children, Youth & Families Dep’t v. Lance K., 2009-NMCA-054, ¶ 16 , 146 N.M. 286 , 209 P.3d 778 (alteration, internal quotation marks, and citation omitted). {7} On appeal, this Court “will uphold the district court’s judgment if, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the judgment, [the district court] could properly determine that the clear and convincing standard was met.” State ex rel.

2020Children, Youth & Families Dep’t v. Lance K., 2009-NMCA-054, ¶ 16 , 146 N.M. 286 , 209 P.3d 778 (alteration, internal quotation marks, and citation omitted). {7} On appeal, this Court “will uphold the district court’s judgment if, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the judgment, [the district court] could properly determine that the clear and convincing standard was met.” State ex rel.

2019Children, Youth, & Families Dep’t v. Lance K., 2009-NMCA-054, ¶ 16 , 146 NM 286 , 209 P.3d 778 (alteration, internal quotation marks, and citations omitted). {10} On appeal, “[this Court] will uphold the district court’s judgment ‘if, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the judgment, a fact[-]finder could properly determine that the clear and convincing standard [had been] met.’’ State ex rel.

2014See State v. Wynn, 2001-NMCA-020, ¶ 5 , 130 N.M. 381 , 24 P.3d 816 (“We must be satisfied that the evidence was sufficient to establish the facts essential to conviction with the level of certainty required by the applicable burden of proof.”); State v. Taylor, 2000-NMCA-072 , ¶ 18, 129 N.M. 376 , 8 P.3d 863 (reviewing the evidence under a clear and convincing standard of proof). {16} Here, because Defendant was charged with attempted first degree murder, the jury was instructed in the elements of both attempt and first degree murder.

2014See State v. Wynn, 2001-NMCA-020, ¶ 5 , 130 N.M. 381 , 24 P.3d 816 (“We must be satisfied that the evidence was sufficient to establish the facts essential to conviction with the level of certainty required by the applicable burden of proof.”); State v. Taylor, 2000-NMCA-072 , ¶ 18, 129 N.M. 376 , 8 P.3d 863 (reviewing the evidence under a clear and convincing standard of proof). {16} Here, because Defendant was charged with attempted first degree murder, the jury was instructed in the elements of both attempt and first degree murder.

2012Martinez v. Parker Townsend Ranch Co., 118 N.M. 787, 790 , 887 P.2d 1254, 1257 (Ct. App. 1992) (stating that it is the obligation of this Court to “entertain all reasonable presumptions in favor of the correctness of the district court’s findings, conclusions, and judgment”), aff’d, 118 N.M. 780 , 887 P.2d 1247 (1994). {24} Defendants also contend that the “court erred in concluding that the presumption of intent to abandon met the clear and convincing standard.” In support of this contention, and in an ostensible effort to persuade this Court that they presented evidence sufficient to overcom

2012Martinez v. Parker Townsend Ranch Co., 118 N.M. 787, 790 , 887 P.2d 1254, 1257 (Ct. App. 1992) (stating that it is the obligation of this Court to “entertain all reasonable presumptions in favor of the correctness of the district court’s findings, conclusions, and judgment”), aff’d, 118 N.M. 780 , 887 P.2d 1247 (1994). {24} Defendants also contend that the “court erred in concluding that the presumption of intent to abandon met the clear and convincing standard.” In support of this contention, and in an ostensible effort to persuade this Court that they presented evidence sufficient to overcom

2007Defendant argued that the clear and convincing standard is required by State v. Rotherham, 122 N.M. 246 , 923 P.2d 1131 (1996).

2007Defendant argued that the clear and convincing standard is required by State v. Rotherham, 122 N.M. 246 , 923 P.2d 1131 (1996).

2025Reed, 2020 IL 124940, ¶ 49 .

2025Dep’t v. David F., 1996-NMCA-018 , ¶ 34, 121 N.M. 341 , 911 P.2d 235 (defining clear and convincing evidence as “proof stronger than a mere preponderance and yet something less than beyond a reasonable doubt” (internal quotation marks and citation omitted)). {21} We uphold the district court’s termination decision “if, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the judgment, a fact[-]finder could properly determine that the clear and convincing standard was met.” State ex rel.

2025Dep’t v. David F., 1996-NMCA-018 , ¶ 34, 121 N.M. 341 , 911 P.2d 235 (defining clear and convincing evidence as “proof stronger than a mere preponderance and yet something less than beyond a reasonable doubt” (internal quotation marks and citation omitted)). {21} We uphold the district court’s termination decision “if, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the judgment, a fact[-]finder could properly determine that the clear and convincing standard was met.” State ex rel.

2025On appeal, when reviewing whether a district court’s decision 4 is supported by substantial evidence of a clear and convincing nature, “we do not 5 reweigh the evidence and we will uphold the district court’s judgment if, viewing 6 the evidence in the light most favorable to the judgment, a fact[-]finder could 7 properly determine that the clear and convincing standard was met.” Id. (alteration, 8 internal quotation marks, and citation omitted).

2021Moreover, H&B fails to note that we expressly rejected the clear and convincing standard for oral contracts related to a partnership agreement in Sanchez v. Saylor, 2000- NMCA-099, ¶ 58, 129 N.M. 742 , 13 P.3d 960 (stating that a higher degree of proof is required only for oral agreements involving interests in land). 3In Alvarez v. Alvarez, 1963-NMSC-124 , 72 N.M. 336 , 383 P.2d 581 , the sole case relied on by H&B for this proposition, our Supreme Court evaluated whether the parties’ performance demonstrated the existence of an oral contract and ultimately concluded that “no basis in fact ha

2021Moreover, H&B fails to note that we expressly rejected the clear and convincing standard for oral contracts related to a partnership agreement in Sanchez v. Saylor, 2000- NMCA-099, ¶ 58, 129 N.M. 742 , 13 P.3d 960 (stating that a higher degree of proof is required only for oral agreements involving interests in land). 3In Alvarez v. Alvarez, 1963-NMSC-124 , 72 N.M. 336 , 383 P.2d 581 , the sole case relied on by H&B for this proposition, our Supreme Court evaluated whether the parties’ performance demonstrated the existence of an oral contract and ultimately concluded that “no basis in fact ha

2021Alvarez does not stand for the proposition that the statute of frauds can otherwise bar the enforcement of an oral contract when the existence of the contract and its terms have been proved and the court is presented with sufficient evidence of the parties’ partial performance. not “to prevent the performance or the enforcement of oral contracts that have in fact been made or to create a loophole of escape for one who seeks to repudiate an agreement that he admits was made.” 1999-NMCA-034, ¶ 13 , 126 N.M. 705 , 974 P.2d 675 (alteration, internal quotation marks, and citation omitted).

2021Alvarez does not stand for the proposition that the statute of frauds can otherwise bar the enforcement of an oral contract when the existence of the contract and its terms have been proved and the court is presented with sufficient evidence of the parties’ partial performance. not “to prevent the performance or the enforcement of oral contracts that have in fact been made or to create a loophole of escape for one who seeks to repudiate an agreement that he admits was made.” 1999-NMCA-034, ¶ 13 , 126 N.M. 705 , 974 P.2d 675 (alteration, internal quotation marks, and citation omitted).

2020Corp., 1989-NMSC-050 , ¶ 19, 108 N.M. 643 , 777 P.2d 371 (reviewing directed verdict). {4} Where a nonmovant fails to respond to a motion for summary judgment after “adequate notice and opportunity to be heard,”3 the district court may enter summary judgment on the movant’s prima facie case.

2020Corp., 1989-NMSC-050 , ¶ 19, 108 N.M. 643 , 777 P.2d 371 (reviewing directed verdict). {4} Where a nonmovant fails to respond to a motion for summary judgment after “adequate notice and opportunity to be heard,”3 the district court may enter summary judgment on the movant’s prima facie case.

2020Children, Youth & Families Dep’t v. B.J., 1997-NMCA-021, ¶ 18 , 123 N.M. 99 , 934 P.2d 293 (explaining that a parent’s fundamental right to parent is not the only interest at stake in termination proceedings and that the district court “was not constitutionally required to leave open the possibility that [the parent] could become able, at some undetermined point in the future, to parent the children adequately”). {19} The evidence presented at trial was sufficient under the clear and convincing standard to establish that the causes and conditions of the neglect were unlikely to change in the f

2020Children, Youth & Families Dep’t v. B.J., 1997-NMCA-021, ¶ 18 , 123 N.M. 99 , 934 P.2d 293 (explaining that a parent’s fundamental right to parent is not the only interest at stake in termination proceedings and that the district court “was not constitutionally required to leave open the possibility that [the parent] could become able, at some undetermined point in the future, to parent the children adequately”). {19} The evidence presented at trial was sufficient under the clear and convincing standard to establish that the causes and conditions of the neglect were unlikely to change in the f