N.M. Stat. § 32A-4-22 (2026)

A. If not held in conjunction with the adjudicatory hearing, the dispositional hearing
shall be commenced within thirty days after the conclusion of the adjudicatory hearing.
At the conclusion of the dispositional hearing, the court shall make and include in the
dispositional judgment its findings on the following:

       (1)    the interaction and interrelationship of the child with the child's parent,
siblings and any other person who may significantly affect the child's best interest;

       (2)    the child's adjustment to the child's home, school and community;

       (3)    the mental and physical health of all individuals involved;

       (4)    the wishes of the child as to the child's placement;

      (5)     the wishes of the child's parent, guardian or custodian as to the child's
custody;

        (6)     whether reasonable efforts have been made by the department to identify,
locate and give notice to all grandparents and other relatives and to conduct home
studies on any appropriate relative who expresses an interest in providing care for the
child. If the court finds that reasonable efforts in these areas have not been made, the
court may make supplemental orders as necessary and may reconsider the matter at
the initial judicial review and subsequent periodic review hearings;

      (7)    whether consideration has been given to the child's familial identity and
connections;
       (8)    whether there exists a relative of the child or other individual who, after
study by the department, is found to be qualified to receive and care for the child;

        (9)    the availability of services recommended in the case plan prepared as a
part of the predisposition study in accordance with the provisions of Section 32A-4-21
NMSA 1978;

        (10) the ability of the parent to care for the child in the home so that no harm
will result to the child;

       (11) whether reasonable efforts were made by the department to prevent
removal of the child from the home prior to placement in substitute care and whether
reasonable efforts were made to attempt reunification of the child with the natural
parent; and

       (12) whether reasonable efforts were made by the department to place siblings
in custody together, unless such joint placement would be contrary to the safety or well-
being of any of the siblings in custody, and whether any siblings not jointly placed have
been provided reasonable visitation or other ongoing interaction, unless visitation or
other ongoing interaction would be contrary to the safety or well-being of any of the
siblings.

  B. If a child is found to be neglected or abused, the court may enter its judgment
making any of the following dispositions to protect the welfare of the child:

      (1)     permit the child to remain with the child's parent, guardian or custodian,
subject to those conditions and limitations the court may prescribe;

       (2)      place the child under protective supervision of the department; or

       (3)      transfer legal custody of the child to one of the following:

             (a) the noncustodial parent, if it is found to be in the child's best interest; or

             (b) the department.

    C. If a child is found to be neglected or abused, in its dispositional judgment the
court shall also order the department to implement and the child's parent, guardian or
custodian to cooperate with any case plan approved by the court. Reasonable efforts
shall be made to preserve and reunify the family, with the paramount concern being the
child's health and safety. The court may determine that reasonable efforts are not
required to be made when the court finds that:

       (1)      the efforts would be futile; or
      (2)   the parent, guardian or custodian has subjected the child to aggravated
circumstances.

    D. Any parent, guardian or custodian of a child who is placed in the legal custody of
the department or other person pursuant to Subsection B of this section shall have
reasonable rights of visitation with the child as determined by the court, unless the court
finds that the best interests of the child preclude any visitation.

    E. The court may order reasonable visitation between a child placed in the custody
of the department and the child's siblings or any other person who may significantly
affect the child's best interest, if the court finds the visitation to be in the child's best
interest.

   F. Unless a child found to be neglected or abused is also found to be delinquent,
the child shall not be confined in an institution established for the long-term care and
rehabilitation of delinquent children.

   G. When the court vests legal custody in an agency, institution or department, the
court shall transmit with the dispositional judgment copies of the clinical reports, the
predisposition study and report and any other information it has pertinent to the care
and treatment of the child.

   H. Prior to a child being placed in the custody or protective supervision of the
department, the department shall be provided with reasonable oral or written notification
and an opportunity to be heard. At any hearing held pursuant to this subsection, the
department may appear as a party.

   I. When the court determines pursuant to Subsection C of this section that no
reasonable efforts at reunification are required, the court shall conduct, within thirty
days, a permanency hearing as described in Section 32A-4-25.1 NMSA 1978.
Reasonable efforts shall be made to implement and finalize the permanency plan in a
timely manner.

History: 1978 Comp., § 32A-4-22, enacted by Laws 1993, ch. 77, § 116; 1997, ch. 34,
§ 6; 1999, ch. 77, § 7; 2005, ch. 189, § 47; 2009, ch. 239, § 42; 2016, ch. 54, § 6; 2022,
ch. 41, § 51.

                                      ANNOTATIONS

Cross references. — For the federal Indian Child Welfare Act, see 25 U.S.C. § 1901.

The 2022 amendment, effective July 1, 2022, removed provisions related to Indian
children which are now covered by the Indian Family Protection Act; in Subsection A,
deleted Paragraph A(13); and deleted former Subsection I and redesignated former
Subjection J as Subsection I.
Applicability. — Laws 2022, ch. 41, § 73 provided that the provisions of Laws 2022,
ch. 41 apply to all cases filed on or after July 1, 2022.

The 2016 amendment, effective May 18, 2016, required the children’s court to include
in its findings on disposition whether reasonable efforts to identify and locate
grandparents and other relatives have been made and whether consideration has been
given to the child’s familial identity and connections; in Subsection A, added new
Paragraphs (6) and (7) and redesignated the succeeding paragraphs accordingly, in
Paragraph (9), after "recommended in the", deleted "treatment" and added "case", in
Paragraph (11), after each occurrence of "efforts were", deleted "used" and added
"made", and in Paragraph (13), after "the Indian child’s", deleted "treatment" and added
"case"; in Subsection B, Paragraph (3), after "the child to", deleted "any" and added
"one", in Subparagraph B(3)(a), after the semicolon, added "or", deleted Subparagraphs
B(3)(b) and (c) and added new Subparagraph B(3)(b); and in Subsection C, in the
introductory paragraph, after "cooperate with any", deleted "treatment" and added
"case".

The 2009 amendment, effective July 1, 2009, added Paragraph (10) of Subsection A

The 2005 amendment, effective June 17, 2005, in Subsection A(4), changed "his
custodian" to "the child’s placement"; and deleted former Subsection C(3), which
provided that the court may determine that reasonable efforts are not required to
preserve and reunify the family if the parental rights of the parent to a sibling of the child
have been terminated involuntarily.

The 1999 amendment, effective July 1, 1999, in Subsection C, added the last two
sentences in the introductory language and added Paragraphs (1) through (3); and
added Subsection J.

The 1997 amendment, effective July 1, 1997, added the first sentence in Subsection A,
substituted "32A-4-21" for "32-4-19" in Paragraph A(7) and made minor stylistic
changes in Paragraph A(9) and Subparagraph B(3)(a).

Decisions under prior law. — In light of the similarity of the provisions, annotations
decided under former Section 32-1-34 NMSA 1978 have been included in the
annotations to this section.

Dismissal of proceedings as to one parent. — Where the district court determined
that the mother had abused her child; the court dismissed abuse and neglect
proceedings against the father; the court determined that placement of the child with the
father was in the best interests of the child, the CYFD ceased to have the authority to
maintain custody of the child and the mother did not have a liberty interest in continuing
the course of her treatment program with the CYFD. State ex rel. Children, Youth &
Families Dep't v. Lisa A., 2008-NMCA-087, 144 N.M. 324, 187 P.3d 189.
Grandparent visitation rights. — The Abuse and Neglect Act does not grant a
grandparent unfettered visitation, particularly after an adoption proceeding has
occurred. State ex rel. Children, Youth & Families Dep't v. Senaida C., 2008-NMCA-
007, 143 N.M. 335, 176 P.3d 324.

Standard of review. – The district court did not err when it used the arbitrary and
capricious standard to review CYFD’s denial of a grandmother’s right of placement.
State ex rel. Children, Youth & Families Dep't v. Senaida C., 2008-NMCA-007, 143 N.M.
335, 176 P.3d 324.

Mootness. — In adjudications of neglect or abuse, because the issue of sufficiency of
the evidence is capable of repetition, but may evade appellate review, the appeal of an
abuse or neglect adjudication challenging the sufficiency of the evidence is not rendered
moot by the district court’s dismissal of the underlying case while the adjudication is on
appeal. State ex rel., Children, Youth & Families Dep't v. Amanda H., 2007-NMCA-029,
141 N.M. 299, 154 P.3d 674.

No unconstitutional delegation of legislative power. — Since the provisions relating
to the meaning of "neglected child" are to be defined and applied by a court and not the
department of human services, there is no unconstitutional, standardless delegation of
legislative power to a state agency. State ex rel. Health & Soc. Servs. Dep't v. Natural
Father, 1979-NMCA-090, 93 N.M. 222, 598 P.2d 1182.

Court can make child its ward before further disposition. — District court could
make a child which it found to be dependent and neglected its ward and thereafter
make such disposition of the child as in its considered judgment was in the child's best
interests. N.M. Dep't of Pub. Welfare v. Cromer, 1948-NMSC-046, 52 N.M. 331, 197
P.2d 902.

Court not bound by any prearranged disposition by agency. — District court was
not bound by any prearranged disposition of child by the department of public welfare
(now health care authority department) since placement in any home was to be with
consent of the court, and the welfare of the child was the court's paramount
consideration. N.M. Dep't of Pub. Welfare v. Cromer, 1948-NMSC-046, 52 N.M. 331,
197 P.2d 902.

Adoption proceeding may not be circumvented. — Proceedings to determine if a
child is dependent and neglected may not be used to circumvent an adoption
proceeding, but where the court has announced its decision denying the petition to
adopt, the welfare and best interest of the child are of paramount consideration. Herman
v. McIver, 1959-NMSC-055, 66 N.M. 36, 341 P.2d 457.

Parental right to custody can be taken away. — The state's claim that parental rights
to custody of a child in need of supervision cannot be taken away absent a showing of
incompetence on the part of the parent or parents is an overly narrow reading of this
statute, which makes no such requirement. In re Doe, 1975-NMCA-131, 88 N.M. 505,
542 P.2d 1195.

"Reasonable efforts". — Sections 32A-4-2C, 32A-4-22C, and 32A-4-28B(2) NMSA
1978 are constitutional facially and as applied to a mother, whose parental rights were
terminated without the state making reasonable efforts toward family reunification,
where the mother had previously had parental rights terminated as to another child and
no progress was evident in the mother's efforts to kick a 4-year drug abuse problem.
State ex rel. Children, Youth & Families Dep't v. Amy B., 2003-NMCA-017, 133 N.M.
136, 61 P.3d 845.

Enrollment of a child as a member of an Indian tribe. — Where the department filed
an abuse and neglect petition and sought to terminate the parent’s parental rights to
three children, prior to trial, the department was aware that the parent and the children
were eligible for enrollment in the Navajo Nation, that the parent had undertaken efforts
to enroll the parent and the children, and that the parent was delayed in the enrollment
process due to unique circumstances; the department made no efforts to facilitate the
enrollment of the children; prior to trial, the parent requested a continuance to permit the
parent to complete the enrollment process; and the district court denied the continuance
on the ground that the parent and the children were not enrolled in the Navajo Nation
and subsequently terminated the parent’s parental rights, the district court erred in
terminating the parent’s parental rights before the department had fulfilled its obligations
under Subsection I of Section 32A-4-22 NMSA 1978 to pursue the enrollment of the
children in the Navajo Nation. State ex rel. CYFD v. Marsalee P., 2013-NMCA-062, 302
P.3d 761.

Department’s duty to investigate whether a child in its custody is eligible for
enrollment as a member of an Indian tribe. — In termination of parental rights
proceeding, the children, youth and families department (CYFD) complied with the
mandate of 32A-4-22(I) NMSA 1978, where CYFD attempted to obtain evidence on
mother’s genealogy, had many conversations with mother to gather information on her
lineage in which mother was not cooperative, requested mother’s birth certificate on
numerous occasions, but mother failed to produce the document, attempted to obtain
mother’s birth certificate through a state agency, unsuccessfully attempted to retrieve
father’s birth certificate and certificate of Indian blood from father and paternal
grandmother, contacted the vital records department of the Navajo Nation, and worked
with other entities within the Navajo Nation and the southern Ute tribe to determine if
children were eligible for enrollment as a member of an Indian tribe. State ex rel. CYFD
v. Nathan H., 2016-NMCA-043, cert. denied.

Court vested with broad discretion in placement of minors. — The court did not
violate the spirit and intent of the Children's Code by placing a 16-year-old girl in the
custody of a woman who had helped to rear her and had been found to be a positive
influence over her where the child felt compelled to run away from her mother's
household and would in all likelihood continue to refuse to live with her mother since the
children's court is vested with a broad discretion in hearing and deciding matters under
it. In re Doe, 1975-NMCA-131, 88 N.M. 505, 542 P.2d 1195.

Effect of agency not studying qualifications of individual awarded custody. —
Contentions that no agency designated by the court had made a study of the
qualifications of the woman awarded custody of a 16-year-old girl in need of supervision
were never raised at the probation revocation hearing, and in awarding custody the
court impliedly found the woman qualified to have custody of the girl. In re Doe, 1975-
NMCA-131, 88 N.M. 505, 542 P.2d 1195.

Counsel of record entitled to notice of subsequent termination action. — The
human services department [health care authority department] was required to serve a
parent's attorney with notice of the department's action to terminate parental rights,
when the attorney was representing him in a separate neglect action before the
children's court. Ronald v. State ex rel. Human Servs. Dep't, 1990-NMSC-071, 110 N.M.
454, 797 P.2d 243.

Adoption of child requires notice to parents. — It is impossible to declare a child to
be dependent and neglected and then place the child for adoption without notice to the
parents. 1959 Op. Att'y Gen. No. 59-59.

District judge has no authority to sign adoption consents after declaring child
dependent and neglected. 1959 Op. Att'y Gen. No. 59-59.

Law reviews. — For comment, "The Freedom of the Press vs. The Confidentiality
Provisions in the New Mexico Children's Code," see 4 N.M.L. Rev. 119 (1973).

For article, "Child Welfare Under the Indian Child Welfare Act of 1978; A New Mexico
Focus," see 10 N.M.L. Rev. 413 (1980).

Am. Jur. 2d, A.L.R. and C.J.S. references. — Power of court or other public agency to
order medical treatment for child over parental objections not based on religious
grounds, 97 A.L.R.3d 421.

Validity of state statute providing for termination of parental rights, 22 A.L.R.4th 774.

Attorneys' fees awards in parent-nonparent child custody case, 45 A.L.R.4th 212.

Foster parent's right to immunity from foster child's negligence claims, 55 A.L.R.4th 778.

Denial or restriction of visitation rights to parent charged with sexually abusing child, 1
A.L.R.5th 776.

43 C.J.S. Infants §§ 69 to 91.
32A-4-23. Disposition of a child with a mental disorder or a
developmental disability in a proceeding under the Abuse and
Neglect Act.
   A. If in a hearing, at any stage of a proceeding on a neglect or abuse petition, the
evidence indicates that a child has a mental disorder or a developmental disability, the
court shall adjudicate the issue of neglect or abuse under the provisions of the
Children's Code.

   B. When a child in department custody needs involuntary placement for residential
mental health or developmental disability services as a result of a mental disorder or
developmental disability, the department shall petition for that child's placement
pursuant to the provisions of the Children's Mental Health and Developmental
Disabilities Act [32A-6A-1 to 32A-6A-30 NMSA 1978].

    C. Any child in department custody who is placed for residential treatment or
habilitation pursuant to the provisions of the Children's Mental Health and
Developmental Disabilities Act shall remain in the legal custody of the department while
in residential treatment or habilitation or until further order of the court.

    D. A court hearing for consideration of an involuntary placement of a child for
residential treatment or habilitation, when the child is subject to the provisions of the
Abuse and Neglect Act, may be heard by the court as part of the abuse or neglect
proceedings or may be heard in a separate proceeding. All parties to the abuse or
neglect proceedings shall be provided with notice of the involuntary placement hearing.

    E. A guardian ad litem appointed pursuant to the Abuse and Neglect Act shall serve
as a guardian ad litem for a child for the purposes of the Children's Mental Health and
Developmental Disabilities Act. When a child is fourteen years of age or older, the child
shall be represented by an attorney unless, after consultation between the child and the
child's attorney, the child elects to be represented by counsel appointed in the
proceedings under the Children's Mental Health and Developmental Disabilities Act.

    F. When a child is subject to the provisions of the Abuse and Neglect Act and is
receiving residential treatment or habilitation services, any documentation required
pursuant to the Children's Mental Health and Developmental Disabilities Act shall be
filed with the court as part of the abuse or neglect proceeding. A review of the child's
placement in a residential treatment or habilitation program shall occur in the same
manner and within the same time requirements as provided in the Children's Mental
Health and Developmental Disabilities Act.

   G. The clerk of the court shall maintain a separate section within an abuse or
neglect file for documents pertaining to actions taken under the Children's Mental Health
and Developmental Disabilities Act.
    H. A child subject to the provisions of the Abuse and Neglect Act who receives
treatment in a residential treatment or habilitation program shall enjoy all the substantive
and procedural rights set forth in the Children's Mental Health and Developmental
Disabilities Act.

History: 1978 Comp., § 32A-4-23, enacted by Laws 1993, ch. 77, § 117; 1995, ch. 206,
§ 23; 2005, ch. 189, § 48.

                                     ANNOTATIONS

The 2005 amendment, effective June 17, 2005, in Subsection D, provided that a
hearing for involuntary placement for residential treatment or habilitation may be heard
in a proceeding separate from an abuse or neglect proceeding; and in Subsection E,
provided that when a child is fourteen years of age or older, the child shall be
represented by an attorney, unless the child elects to be represented by counsel
appointed in a proceeding under the Children's Mental Health and Developmental
Disabilities Act.

The 1995 amendment, effective July 1, 1995, inserted "under the Abuse and Neglect
Act" in the section heading, deleted former Subsection B, relating to abuse or neglect
petitions, redesignated former Subsections C and D as Subsections B and C,
substituted "When a child in department custody needs involuntary placement for
residential" for "If the department has reason to believe that a child in department
custody needs residential" in Subsection B, deleted Subsections E and F, relating to
release from residential treatment or habilitation, and added Subsections D through H.