8 New Mexico opinions name it 2 courts 2007–2023 3 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 |
|---|---|---|
Hennessy v. Duryeagreen1 sentence2023See Hennessy, 1998-NMCA-036, ¶ 24 ; Mondragon, 1988-NMCA-027 , ¶ 10. | 1 | 1 |
State ex rel. Children, Youth & Families Departmentgreen1 sentence2021See Patricia H., 2002-NMCA-061, ¶ 26 . {12} Importantly, as we noted in our notice of proposed disposition, there was expert witness testimony presented at the termination of parental rights hearing regarding the fact that Father’s circumstances related to his mental health limitations are not likely to change and that Father “may not be able to make the changes necessary to rectify the causes and conditions of the neglect and abuse so as to enable the court to conclude that the parent is able to properly care for the child.” State ex rel. | 1 | 1 |
State Ex Rel. Children, Youth & Families Department v. Athena H.green2 sentences2011Compare Joseph M., 11 2006-NMCA-029, ¶ 22 (concluding that the father could not have been expected to 12 know “that his relationship with Mother was a condition and cause of the abuse and 13 neglect of his children”), with Athena H., 2006-NMCA-113, ¶ 5 (finding that further 14 CYFD efforts were unlikely to remedy the mother’s mental health issues, the 15 underlying cause of abuse and neglect). 16 Conclusion 17 The evidence of record introduced at the termination of parental rights hearing 18 failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence the required statutory justification 19 for terminatin 2011Compare Joseph M., 11 2006-NMCA-029, ¶ 22 (concluding that the father could not have been expected to 12 know “that his relationship with Mother was a condition and cause of the abuse and 13 neglect of his children”), with Athena H., 2006-NMCA-113, ¶ 5 (finding that further 14 CYFD efforts were unlikely to remedy the mother’s mental health issues, the 15 underlying cause of abuse and neglect). 16 Conclusion 17 The evidence of record introduced at the termination of parental rights hearing 18 failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence the required statutory justification 19 for terminatin | 1 | 1 |
State Ex Rel. Children, Youth & Families Department v. Joseph M.green2 sentences2011The Court held that CYFD had not “presented clear and convincing 14 evidence that the causes and conditions of neglect were unlikely to change in the 15 foreseeable future.” Id. ¶ 37. 16 In Joseph M., the father followed his treatment plan and made positive 17 progress toward becoming an adequate parent, but the mother made little progress. 18 2006-NMCA-029, ¶¶ 10-11 . 2011Compare Joseph M., 11 2006-NMCA-029, ¶ 22 (concluding that the father could not have been expected to 12 know “that his relationship with Mother was a condition and cause of the abuse and 13 neglect of his children”), with Athena H., 2006-NMCA-113, ¶ 5 (finding that further 14 CYFD efforts were unlikely to remedy the mother’s mental health issues, the 15 underlying cause of abuse and neglect). 16 Conclusion 17 The evidence of record introduced at the termination of parental rights hearing 18 failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence the required statutory justification 19 for terminatin | 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 |
|---|---|---|
State v. Sheldon
green
2 sentences2020State v. Sheldon, 1990-NMCA-039 , ¶ 5, 110 N.M. 28 , 791 P.2d 479 (“It has long been recognized by this [C]ourt that the appellate rules do not allow appellate counsel to pick through the record for possible error.”). {6} Accordingly, for the reasons stated in our notice of proposed disposition and herein, we affirm. {7} IT IS SO ORDERED. 2020State v. Sheldon, 1990-NMCA-039 , ¶ 5, 110 N.M. 28 , 791 P.2d 479 (“It has long been recognized by this [C]ourt that the appellate rules do not allow appellate counsel to pick through the record for possible error.”). {6} Accordingly, for the reasons stated in our notice of proposed disposition and herein, we affirm. {7} IT IS SO ORDERED. | 2 | 2020–2020 |
State ex rel. Children, Youth & Families Department v. Mafin M.
green
1 sentence2023Having reviewed the record, however, we are satisfied that the district court, CYFD, and Father’s counsel made “every reasonable attempt to allow [Father] to participate meaningfully the proceedings,” see Mafin M., 2003-NMSC-015, ¶ 21 , and further that there is no reasonable likelihood that Father’s presence at the termination hearing might have affected the outcome of the proceeding, see Pamela R.D.G., 2006- NMSC-019, ¶ 14. {6} The termination of parental rights hearing was set for January 8, 2021. | 1 | 2023–2023 |
State ex rel. Children, Youth & Families Department v. Paul P.
green
2 sentences2020Children, Youth & Families Dep’t v. Paul P., Jr., 1999-NMCA-077, ¶ 14 , 127 N.M. 492 , 983 P.2d 1011 (stating that “termination of parental rights cases can be candidates for fundamental error analysis”). {6} We will begin with Mother’s contention that the district court erred in failing to “reconvene the termination of parental rights hearing,” sua sponte, upon learning of the foster parents’ disinterest in adopting. [MIO 2, 3] At the outset, we observe that Mother cites no authority on point. 2020Children, Youth & Families Dep’t v. Paul P., Jr., 1999-NMCA-077, ¶ 14 , 127 N.M. 492 , 983 P.2d 1011 (stating that “termination of parental rights cases can be candidates for fundamental error analysis”). {6} We will begin with Mother’s contention that the district court erred in failing to “reconvene the termination of parental rights hearing,” sua sponte, upon learning of the foster parents’ disinterest in adopting. [MIO 2, 3] At the outset, we observe that Mother cites no authority on point. | 1 | 2020–2020 |
State Ex Rel. Children, Youth & Families Department v. Lance K.
green
2 sentences2011(In re Emily K.), 13 2009-NMCA-054, ¶ 16 , 146 N.M. 286 , 209 P.3d 778 (internal quotation marks and 14 citation omitted). 15 When determining whether clear and convincing evidence supports the 16 termination of parental rights, the district court must rely on evidence presented at 17 the termination of parental rights hearing. 2011(In re Emily K.), 13 2009-NMCA-054, ¶ 16 , 146 N.M. 286 , 209 P.3d 778 (internal quotation marks and 14 citation omitted). 15 When determining whether clear and convincing evidence supports the 16 termination of parental rights, the district court must rely on evidence presented at 17 the termination of parental rights hearing. | 1 | 2011–2011 |
State Ex Rel. Cyfd v. Lance K.
green
1 sentence2011(In re Emily K.), 13 2009-NMCA-054, ¶ 16 , 146 N.M. 286 , 209 P.3d 778 (internal quotation marks and 14 citation omitted). 15 When determining whether clear and convincing evidence supports the 16 termination of parental rights, the district court must rely on evidence presented at 17 the termination of parental rights hearing. | 1 | 2011–2011 |
State Ex Rel. Children, Youth & Families Department v. Ruth Anne E.
green
2 sentences2007Children, Youth and Families Dep’t. v. Ruth Anne E., 1999-NMCA-035, ¶22 , 126 N.M. 670 , 974 P.2d 164 . {36} This issue was preserved at the termination of parental rights hearing when the trial court asked the parties to submit case law on the constitutional issues regarding language barriers and the translation of documents. 2007Children, Youth and Families Dep’t. v. Ruth Anne E., 1999-NMCA-035, ¶22 , 126 N.M. 670 , 974 P.2d 164 . {36} This issue was preserved at the termination of parental rights hearing when the trial court asked the parties to submit case law on the constitutional issues regarding language barriers and the translation of documents. | 1 | 2007–2007 |
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.