Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
8 New Mexico opinions name it 2 courts 2007–2020 0 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by New Mexico courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
In re Christina M.green2 sentences2009See In re Christina M., 280 Conn. 474 , 908 A.2d 1073, 1080 (2006) (recognizing that the inadequate representation of a child in a TPR case could affect the outcome, and thus a parent has a claim of injury sufficient to confer standing). 2009See In re Christina M., 280 Conn. 474 , 908 A.2d 1073, 1080 (2006) (recognizing that the inadequate representation of a child in a TPR case could affect the outcome, and thus a parent has a claim of injury sufficient to confer standing). | 2 | 2 |
State ex rel. Children, Youth & Families Departmentgreen1 sentence2020Children, Youth & Families Dep’t v. Tammy S., 1999-NMCA-009, ¶ 15 , 126 N.M. 664 , 974 P.2d 158 (holding that the “[f]ather’s transience, failure to communicate, and lack of cooperation rendered the [d]epartment’s efforts sufficient”); see also Patricia H., 2002-NMCA-061, ¶¶ 23, 31 (explaining that the “level of cooperation” by the parent factors into the reasonableness of the department’s efforts); Vanessa C., 2000-NMCA-025, ¶ 29 (reasoning that under the totality of the circumstances the district court properly found that the evidentiary standard for termination was met when there was “two y | 1 | 1 |
State Ex Rel. Children, Youth & Families Department v. Vanessa C.green1 sentence2020Children, Youth & Families Dep’t v. Tammy S., 1999-NMCA-009, ¶ 15 , 126 N.M. 664 , 974 P.2d 158 (holding that the “[f]ather’s transience, failure to communicate, and lack of cooperation rendered the [d]epartment’s efforts sufficient”); see also Patricia H., 2002-NMCA-061, ¶¶ 23, 31 (explaining that the “level of cooperation” by the parent factors into the reasonableness of the department’s efforts); Vanessa C., 2000-NMCA-025, ¶ 29 (reasoning that under the totality of the circumstances the district court properly found that the evidentiary standard for termination was met when there was “two y | 1 | 1 |
Carzell Moore v. Ralph Kemp, Warden, Georgia Diagnostic and Classification Center, Respondentgreen2 sentences2007See id. at 709-710 . 2007See id. at 709-710 . | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in New Mexico. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Santillo v. New Mexico Department of Public Safety
green
2 sentences2009Safety, 2007-NMCA-159, ¶ 17 , 143 N.M. 84 , 173 P.3d 6 ("The plain language of the statute is our primary guide to legislative intent[.]"). {9} Section 1914 explicitly permits a parent to challenge—in any court of competent jurisdiction—three types of violations: (1) Section 1911, which concerns tribal court jurisdiction; (2) Section 1912, which concerns the proof required to substantiate a termination of parental rights or a foster care placement; or (3) Section 1913, which concerns the validity of a parent's consent to termination or foster care placement. 2009Safety, 2007-NMCA-159, ¶ 17 , 143 N.M. 84 , 173 P.3d 6 ("The plain language of the statute is our primary guide to legislative intent[.]"). {9} Section 1914 explicitly permits a parent to challenge—in any court of competent jurisdiction—three types of violations: (1) Section 1911, which concerns tribal court jurisdiction; (2) Section 1912, which concerns the proof required to substantiate a termination of parental rights or a foster care placement; or (3) Section 1913, which concerns the validity of a parent's consent to termination or foster care placement. | 2 | 2009–2009 |
Santillo v. NM Dept. of Public Safety
green
2 sentences2009Safety, 2007-NMCA-159, ¶ 17 , 143 N.M. 84 , 173 P.3d 6 (“The plain language of the statute is our primary guide to legislative intent[.]”). {9} Section 1914 explicitly permits a parent to challenge — in any court of competent jurisdiction — -three types of violations: (1) Section 1911, which concerns tribal court jurisdiction; (2) Section 1912, which concerns the proof required to substantiate a termination of parental rights or a foster care placement; or (3) Section 1913, which concerns the validity of a parent’s consent to termination or foster care placement. 2009Safety, 2007-NMCA-159, ¶ 17 , 143 N.M. 84 , 173 P.3d 6 ("The plain language of the statute is our primary guide to legislative intent[.]"). {9} Section 1914 explicitly permits a parent to challenge—in any court of competent jurisdiction—three types of violations: (1) Section 1911, which concerns tribal court jurisdiction; (2) Section 1912, which concerns the proof required to substantiate a termination of parental rights or a foster care placement; or (3) Section 1913, which concerns the validity of a parent's consent to termination or foster care placement. | 2 | 2009–2009 |
State Ex Rel. Children, Youth & Families Department v. Tammy S.
green
2 sentences2020Children, Youth & Families Dep’t v. Tammy S., 1999-NMCA-009, ¶ 15 , 126 N.M. 664 , 974 P.2d 158 (holding that the “[f]ather’s transience, failure to communicate, and lack of cooperation rendered the [d]epartment’s efforts sufficient”); see also Patricia H., 2002-NMCA-061, ¶¶ 23, 31 (explaining that the “level of cooperation” by the parent factors into the reasonableness of the department’s efforts); Vanessa C., 2000-NMCA-025, ¶ 29 (reasoning that under the totality of the circumstances the district court properly found that the evidentiary standard for termination was met when there was “two y 2020Children, Youth & Families Dep’t v. Tammy S., 1999-NMCA-009, ¶ 15 , 126 N.M. 664 , 974 P.2d 158 (holding that the “[f]ather’s transience, failure to communicate, and lack of cooperation rendered the [d]epartment’s efforts sufficient”); see also Patricia H., 2002-NMCA-061, ¶¶ 23, 31 (explaining that the “level of cooperation” by the parent factors into the reasonableness of the department’s efforts); Vanessa C., 2000-NMCA-025, ¶ 29 (reasoning that under the totality of the circumstances the district court properly found that the evidentiary standard for termination was met when there was “two y | 1 | 2020–2020 |
State Ex Rel. Children, Youth & Families Department v. Marlene C.
green
2 sentences2011Under 25 U.S.C. § 1914 (1978), a parent can challenge in any court of competent jurisdiction for violations of “Section 1912, which concerns the proof required to substantiate a termination of parental rights or a foster care placement.” Marlene C., 2009-NMCA-058, ¶ 9 , 146 N.M. 588 , 212 P.3d 1142 . {43} We hold there was sufficient evidence for the district court to find beyond a reasonable doubt that CYFD engaged in active efforts to provide remedial services and rehabilitative programs. {44} The district court made adequate findings, in its adopted findings of fact, that CYFD engaged in ac 2011Under 25 U.S.C. § 1914 (1978), a parent can challenge in any court of competent jurisdiction for violations of “Section 1912, which concerns the proof required to substantiate a termination of parental rights or a foster care placement.” Marlene C., 2009-NMCA-058, ¶ 9 , 146 N.M. 588 , 212 P.3d 1142 . {43} We hold there was sufficient evidence for the district court to find beyond a reasonable doubt that CYFD engaged in active efforts to provide remedial services and rehabilitative programs. {44} The district court made adequate findings, in its adopted findings of fact, that CYFD engaged in ac | 1 | 2011–2011 |
State of Nm Ex Rel. Cyfd v. Marlene C.
green
1 sentence2011Under 25 U.S.C. § 1914 (1978), a parent can challenge in any court of competent jurisdiction for violations of “Section 1912, which concerns the proof required to substantiate a termination of parental rights or a foster care placement.” Marlene C., 2009-NMCA-058, ¶ 9 , 146 N.M. 588 , 212 P.3d 1142 . {43} We hold there was sufficient evidence for the district court to find beyond a reasonable doubt that CYFD engaged in active efforts to provide remedial services and rehabilitative programs. {44} The district court made adequate findings, in its adopted findings of fact, that CYFD engaged in ac | 1 | 2011–2011 |
State v. Lefevre
green
2 sentences2008Parental Privilege {10} This Court recently held that "in New Mexico, a parent has a privilege to use moderate or reasonable physical force, without criminal liability, when engaged in the discipline of his or her child." State v. Lefevre, 2005-NMCA-101, ¶ 16 , 138 N.M. 174 , 117 P.3d 980 . 2008Parental Privilege {10} This Court recently held that "in New Mexico, a parent has a privilege to use moderate or reasonable physical force, without criminal liability, when engaged in the discipline of his or her child." State v. Lefevre, 2005-NMCA-101, ¶ 16 , 138 N.M. 174 , 117 P.3d 980 . | 1 | 2008–2008 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.