clear and convincing evidence standard in New Mexico

2025“Rather, we review to determine whether, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prevailing party, the fact[-]finder could properly determine that the clear and convincing evidence standard was met.” Id.

2024“Rather, we review to determine whether, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prevailing party, the fact finder could properly determine that the clear and convincing evidence standard was met.” Id. {14} Mother argues that she provided proper parental care to Child under the circumstances, and she did everything she could to address Child’s sexualized behaviors.

2022Rather, we review to determine whether, “viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prevailing party, the fact[-]finder could properly determine that the clear and convincing evidence standard was met.” Id. (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). {4} The district court determined that Children suffered physical abuse, emotional abuse or psychological abuse inflicted or caused by Respondent, as set forth in NMSA 1978, Section 32A-4-2(B)(2) (2018). [RP 102-03] The district court also determined that Children were without proper parental care and control or subsistence, educ

2017Our standard of review is therefore whether, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prevailing party, the fact finder could properly determine that the clear and convincing evidence standard was met." Id. (internal quotation marks and citations omitted).

2021Instead, our inquiry is “narrow[,]” and limited to considering “whether, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prevailing party, the fact[-]finder could properly determine that the clear and convincing evidence standard was met.” Id. {10} Under Sections 32A-4-2(B)(1),(4), an “abused child” is defined, in pertinent part, as a child “who has suffered or who is at risk of suffering serious harm because of the action or inaction of the child’s parent, guardian or custodian”; or “whose parent, guardian or custodian has knowingly, intentionally or negligently placed the child in a

2019Children, Youth & Families Dep’t v. Alfonso M.-E., 2016-NMCA-021, ¶ 26 , 366 P.3d 282 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).

2021Children, Youth & Families Dep’t v. Senaida C., 2008-NMCA-007, ¶ 27 , 143 N.M. 335 , 176 P.3d 324 (recognizing the duty of appellate counsel to raise issues pursuant to Alicia P. but declining to address them because the “issues [were] not briefed” and the appellant did not include “proper citations to the record and relevant authority”). 2006-NMCA-029, ¶ 15 , 139 N.M. 137 , 130 P.3d 198 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). {23} Our review is limited to ascertaining “whether, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prevailing party, the fact finder could properly de

2021Children, Youth & Families Dep’t v. Senaida C., 2008-NMCA-007, ¶ 27 , 143 N.M. 335 , 176 P.3d 324 (recognizing the duty of appellate counsel to raise issues pursuant to Alicia P. but declining to address them because the “issues [were] not briefed” and the appellant did not include “proper citations to the record and relevant authority”). 2006-NMCA-029, ¶ 15 , 139 N.M. 137 , 130 P.3d 198 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). {23} Our review is limited to ascertaining “whether, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prevailing party, the fact finder could properly de

2018Children, Youth & Families Dep't v. Hector C. , 2008-NMCA-079 , ¶ 11, 144 N.M. 222 , 185 P.3d 1072 (requiring clear and convincing evidence in termination cases).

2018Children, Youth & Families Dep't v. Hector C. , 2008-NMCA-079 , ¶ 11, 144 N.M. 222 , 185 P.3d 1072 (requiring clear and convincing evidence in termination cases).

2018It refers to "evidence that instantly tilt[s] the scales in the affirmative when weighed against the evidence in opposition and the fact finder's mind is left with an abiding conviction that the evidence is true." In re Locatelli , 2007-NMSC-029 , ¶ 7, 141 N.M. 755 , 161 P.3d 252 (alteration in original) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). {37} The determination whether available release conditions would reasonably protect others does not require scientific accuracy any more than any other prediction of future human behavior.

2018It refers to "evidence that instantly tilt[s] the scales in the affirmative when weighed against the evidence in opposition and the fact finder's mind is left with an abiding conviction that the evidence is true." In re Locatelli , 2007-NMSC-029 , ¶ 7, 141 N.M. 755 , 161 P.3d 252 (alteration in original) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). {37} The determination whether available release conditions would reasonably protect others does not require scientific accuracy any more than any other prediction of future human behavior.

2018Children, Youth & Families Dep’t v. Hector C., 2008-NMCA-079, ¶ 11 , 144 N.M. 222 , 185 P.3d 1072 (requiring clear and convincing evidence in termination cases).

2018Children, Youth & Families Dep't v. Hector C. , 2008-NMCA-079 , ¶ 11, 144 N.M. 222 , 185 P.3d 1072 (requiring clear and convincing evidence in termination cases).

2015In re Mahdjid B., 2015-NMSC-003 , 10 ¶ 12, 342 P.3d 698 (“Statutory interpretation is a question of law, which we review 11 de novo.” (internal quotation marks and citation omitted)). 12 Section 32A-4-2(E)(4) 13 {13} We begin with Mother’s argument that there was insufficient evidence to 14 support the district court’s conclusion that Child was neglected under Section 32A-4- 15 2(E)(4) because the district court made no findings supporting a conclusion that 16 Mother suffers from a mental disorder or incapacity.

2015In re Mahdjid B., 2015-NMSC-003, ¶ 12 , 342 P.3d 698 (“Statutory interpretation is a question of law, which we review de novo.” (internal quotation marks and citation omitted)).

2015To meet the clear and convincing evidence standard, the evidence “must instantly tilt the scales in the affirmative when weighed against the evidence in opposition and the fact finder’s mind is left with an abiding conviction that the evidence is true.” In re Adoption of Doe, 1982-NMCA-094 , ¶ 31, 98 N.M. 340 , 648 P.2d 798 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).

2015To meet the clear and convincing evidence standard, the evidence “must instantly tilt the scales in the affirmative when weighed against the evidence in opposition and the fact finder’s mind is left with an abiding conviction that the evidence is true.” In re Adoption of Doe, 1982-NMCA-094 , ¶ 31, 98 N.M. 340 , 648 P.2d 798 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).

2001As this Court noted in In re Candice Y., the judgment will be upheld “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 (citation omitted).

2001As this Court noted in In re Candice Y., the judgment will be upheld “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 (citation omitted).

1989More current evidence was necessary to support termination due to the “considerable changes in the mother’s circumstances.” Id. at 679 , 634 P.2d at 701 .

1989More current evidence was necessary to support termination due to the “considerable changes in the mother’s circumstances.” Id. at 679 , 634 P.2d at 701 .

2026State v. Mondragon, 1988-NMCA-027 , ¶ 10, 107 N.M. 421 , 759 P.2d 1003 , superseded by statute on other grounds as stated in State v. Harris, 2013-NMCA- 031, ¶ 3, 297 P.3d 374 .

2026State v. Mondragon, 1988-NMCA-027 , ¶ 10, 107 N.M. 421 , 759 P.2d 1003 , superseded by statute on other grounds as stated in State v. Harris, 2013-NMCA- 031, ¶ 3, 297 P.3d 374 .

2023Marlene C., 2011-NMSC-005, ¶ 14 .

2022Id.

2021Trujillo v. City of Albuquerque, 1998-NMSC-031, ¶ 33 , 125 N.M. 721 , 965 P.2d 305 .

2021Trujillo v. City of Albuquerque, 1998-NMSC-031, ¶ 33 , 125 N.M. 721 , 965 P.2d 305 .

2021Children, Youth & Families Dep’t v. Senaida C., 2008-NMCA-007, ¶ 27 , 143 N.M. 335 , 176 P.3d 324 (recognizing the duty of appellate counsel to raise issues pursuant to Alicia P. but declining to address them because the “issues [were] not briefed” and the appellant did not include “proper citations to the record and relevant authority”). 2006-NMCA-029, ¶ 15 , 139 N.M. 137 , 130 P.3d 198 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). {23} Our review is limited to ascertaining “whether, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prevailing party, the fact finder could properly de

2021Children, Youth & Families Dep’t v. Senaida C., 2008-NMCA-007, ¶ 27 , 143 N.M. 335 , 176 P.3d 324 (recognizing the duty of appellate counsel to raise issues pursuant to Alicia P. but declining to address them because the “issues [were] not briefed” and the appellant did not include “proper citations to the record and relevant authority”). 2006-NMCA-029, ¶ 15 , 139 N.M. 137 , 130 P.3d 198 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). {23} Our review is limited to ascertaining “whether, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prevailing party, the fact finder could properly de

2021With this in mind, our task is to determine whether the result below “is supported by substantial evidence, not whether the [district] court could have reached a different conclusion.” In re Ernesto M., Jr., 1996-NMCA-039 , ¶ 15, 121 N.M. 562 , 915 P.2d 318 .

2021With this in mind, our task is to determine whether the result below “is supported by substantial evidence, not whether the [district] court could have reached a different conclusion.” In re Ernesto M., Jr., 1996-NMCA-039 , ¶ 15, 121 N.M. 562 , 915 P.2d 318 .

2021Id. at 1206-07 .

2019Children, Youth & Families Dep’t v. Keon H., 2018-NMSC-033, ¶ 38 , 421 P.3d 814 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).

2019Children, Youth & Families Dep’t v. Vanessa C., 2000-NMCA-025, ¶ 24 , 128 N.M. 701 , 997 P.2d 833 . “[V]iewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prevailing party, the fact[-]finder could properly determine that the clear and convincing evidence standard was met” to sustain the determination that the child was subjected to chronic abuse as defined by statute.

2019Children, Youth & Families Dep’t v. Vanessa C., 2000-NMCA-025, ¶ 24 , 128 N.M. 701 , 997 P.2d 833 . “[V]iewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prevailing party, the fact[-]finder could properly determine that the clear and convincing evidence standard was met” to sustain the determination that the child was subjected to chronic abuse as defined by statute.