N.M. Stat. § 32A-4-23 (2026)

termination of the orders shall not disqualify a child from eligibility for transitional
services.

History: 1978 Comp., § 32A-4-24, enacted by Laws 1993, ch. 77, § 118; 2009, ch. 239,
§ 44.

                                    ANNOTATIONS

Bracketed material. — The bracketed material in Subsection F was inserted by the
compiler to correct a typographical error, and is not part of the law.

The 2009 amendment, effective July 1, 2009, in Subsection D, after "any party", added
"including the child by and through"; and in Subsection F, in the first sentence, after
"automatically terminate", added the remainder of the sentence.

Applicability. — Laws 2009, ch. 239, § 71, provided that the provisions of this act apply
to all children who, on July 1, 2009, are on release or are otherwise eligible to be placed
on release as if the Juvenile Public Safety Advisory Board Act had been in effect at the
time they were placed on release or became eligible to be released.
Federal proceeding barred. — A federal class action by mentally or developmentally
disabled children against state officers was barred because the continuing jurisdiction of
the children's court under this section, coupled with the mandatory six-month periodic
review hearings under Section 32A-4-25 NMSA 1978, constituted an ongoing state
judicial proceeding. J.B. v. Valdez, 186 F.3d 1280 (10th Cir. 1999).

Jurisdiction not lost by expiration of custody order. — Since the children's court
had jurisdiction at the beginning of abuse and neglect proceedings, expiration of a
temporary custody order did not cause the loss of the court's jurisdiction. Spear v.
McDermott, 1996-NMCA-048, 121 N.M. 609, 916 P.2d 228, cert. denied, 121 N.M. 644,
916 P.2d 844.

District court did not exercise its contempt power consistent with purpose of civil
contempt. — In a civil contempt proceeding, where the district court found the children,
youth and families department (CYFD) in contempt of court for attempting to circumvent
the court's order in placing two children that had been adjudicated to be abused, the
acts of which effectively eliminated the likelihood of reconciliation between the children
and their parents, the district court's order holding CYFD in contempt for violating the
placement decision and imposing compensatory damages and costs was an abuse of
discretion, because the district court had previously found that CYFD had no duty to
support reconciliation and the court had refused the parents' proposed finding that the
placements might undermine future prospects for reconciliation between the children
and their parents. Because efforts toward reunification and reconciliation were no
longer being required by the district court, and were therefore not a goal of any
treatment plan, the purpose for which the district court exercised its contempt power
was not remedial in nature and therefore cannot be upheld as a valid exercise of civil
contempt power. State v. ex rel. CYFD v. Mercer-Smith, 2019-NMSC-005, rev'g 2015-
NMCA-093, 356 P.3d 26.

Jurisdiction to impose sanctions continues after abuse and neglect proceedings
are terminated.- A district court retains jurisdiction under its inherent authority to
impose sanctions at any time, subject only to constitutional limitations or equitable
defenses. State ex rel. Children, Youth & Families Dep’t. v. Mercer-Smith, 2015-NMCA-
093, cert. granted, 2015-NMCERT-008.

The district court did not lose jurisdiction to continue contempt proceedings against the
children, youth and families department, in an abuse and neglect case involving foster
placement of children, when the abuse and neglect proceedings were terminated after
the children turned eighteen years old, because a court retains jurisdiction under its
inherent authority to impose sanctions at any time, subject only to constitutional
limitations or equitable defenses. State ex rel. Children, Youth & Families Dep’t. v.
Mercer-Smith, 2015-NMCA-093, cert. granted, 2015-NMCERT-008.