N.M. Stat. » Chapter 32A — Children's Code
New Mexico Statutes

N.M. Stat. § 32A-4-24 (2026)

Limitations on dispositional judgments; modification,

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section NM-LEGnmonesource.com JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

termination or extension of court orders. A. A judgment vesting legal custody of a child in an agency shall remain in force for an indeterminate period not exceeding two years from the date entered.

B. A judgment vesting legal custody of a child in an individual, other than the child's parent or permanent guardian, shall remain in force for two years from the date entered, unless sooner terminated by court order.

C. A judgment vesting legal custody of a child in the child's parent or a permanent guardian shall remain in force for an indeterminate period from the date entered until terminated by court order or until the child is emancipated or reaches the age of majority.

D. At any time prior to expiration, a judgment vesting legal custody or granting protective supervision may be modified, revoked or extended on motion by any party, including the child by and through the child's guardian ad litem.

E. Prior to the expiration of a judgment transferring legal custody to an agency, the court may extend the judgment for additional periods of one year if it finds that the extension is necessary to safeguard the welfare of the child or the public interest.

F. When a child reaches eighteen years of age, all neglect and abuse orders affecting the child then in force automatically terminate except as provided in Section 32A-4-23.1 NMSA 1978 and Subsection D[C] of Section 32A-4-25.3 NMSA 1978. The 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.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 12 cases, 1996–2015 · leading case: J.B. Ex Rel. Hart v. Valdez, 186 F.3d 1280 (10th Cir. 1999).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
J.B. Ex Rel. Hart v. Valdez, 186 F.3d 1280 (10th Cir. 1999). “These proceedings, while admittedly less than full adversarial hearings, are judicial in nature. Moreover, they exist as long as the child remains in state custody, so they are ongoing.”
State, Child., Youth & Families Dep't v. Paul G., 2006 NMCA 038 (N.M. Ct. App. 2006). · cites it 4× “The Abuse and Neglect Act limits dispositional judgments “vesting legal custody of a child in an agency” to “an indeterminate period not exceeding two years from the date entered.”
Spear v. McDermott, 916 P.2d 228 (N.M. Ct. App. 1996). · cites it 2× “1989), currently codified at NMSA 1978, § 32A-4-24 (Repl. Pamp.1995) (judgment vesting legal custody of child, in agency shall remain in force for a period not exceeding two years from the date entered).”
State ex rel. Child., Youth & Families Dep't v. Mercer-Smith, 2015 NMCA 093 (N.M. Ct. App. 2015). · cites it 2× “See NMSA 1978, § 32A-4-24(F) (2009) (“When a child reaches eighteen years of age, all neglect and abuse orders affecting the child then in force automatically terminate except as provided in [NMSA 1978,] Section 32A-4-23.”
State ex rel. Chidren, Youth & Families Dep't v. Djamila B., 2015 NMSC 003 (N.M. Ct. App. 2014). “On August 9, 2011, the children’s court adopted CYFD’s proposed reunification plan pursuant to Sections 32A-4-24 and 32A-4-25.1, and Children were scheduled for a trial home visit to transition back to living with Guardian beginning on August 12, 2011 as Guardian continued with…”
State Ex Rel. Child., Youth & Families Dep't v. Marlene C., 2009 NMCA 58 (N.M. Ct. App. 2009). “See § 32A-4-24(A)-(E). {13} The Department contends that the district court made both the active efforts and the serious damage determinations at the earliest opportunity — at the ex parte custody order and the temporary custody hearing — and therefore satisfied its obligation…”
State of Nm Ex Rel. Cyfd v. Marlene C., 212 P.3d 1142 (N.M. Ct. App. 2009). “See § 32A-4-24(A)-(E). {13} The Department contends that the district court made both the active efforts and the serious damage determinations at the earliest opportunity—at the ex parte custody order and the temporary custody hearing—and therefore satisfied its obligation under…”
State ex rel. Child., Youth & Families Dep't v. Djamila B., 2014 NMCA 045 (N.M. Ct. App. 2014). · cites it 2× “{4} In June 2010, Children, Youth and Families Department (CYFD) took custody of Children and filed a neglect/abuse petition against mother, father, stepfather, and Guardian pursuant to the Abuse and Neglect Act (the Act), NMSA 1978, §§ 32A-4-24 (2009) and -28 (2005).”
State ex rel. CYFD v. Djamila B., 2014 NMCA 45 (N.M. Ct. App. 2014). · cites it 2× “{4} In June 2010, Children, Youth and Families Department (CYFD) took custody of Children and filed a neglect/abuse petition against mother, father, stepfather, and Guardian pursuant to the Abuse and Neglect Act (the Act), NMSA 1978, §§ 32A-4-24 (2009) and -28 (2005).”
State of NM, ex rel CYFD v. Djamila B (N.M. Ct. App. 2014). · cites it 2× “{4} In June 2010, Children, Youth and Families Department (CYFD) took custody of Children and filed a neglect/abuse petition against mother, father, stepfather, and Guardian pursuant to the Abuse and Neglect Act (the Act), NMSA 1978, §§ 32A-4-24 (2009) and 32A-4-28 (2005).”
State ex rel. Child., Youth & Families Dep't v. Mercer-Smith (N.M. Ct. App. 2015). · cites it 2× “See NMSA 1978, § 32A-4-24(F) (2009) 5 (“When a child reaches eighteen years of age, all neglect and abuse orders affecting 6 the child then in force automatically terminate except as provided in [NMSA 1978,] 7 Section 32A-4-23.”
In re Mahdjid B. & Aliah B. (N.M. 2014). “On August 15 9, 2011, the children’s court adopted CYFD’s proposed reunification plan pursuant 16 to Sections 32A-4-24 and 32A-4-25.1, and Children were scheduled for a trial home 17 visit to transition back to living with Guardian beginning on August 12, 2011 as 18 Guardian…”
— N.M. Stat. § 32A-4-24(A) — 3 cases
State, Child., Youth & Families Dep't v. Paul G., 2006 NMCA 038 (N.M. Ct. App. 2006). “The Abuse and Neglect Act limits dispositional judgments “vesting legal custody of a child in an agency” to “an indeterminate period not exceeding two years from the date entered.”
State Ex Rel. Child., Youth & Families Dep't v. Marlene C., 2009 NMCA 58 (N.M. Ct. App. 2009). “See § 32A-4-24(A)-(E). {13} The Department contends that the district court made both the active efforts and the serious damage determinations at the earliest opportunity — at the ex parte custody order and the temporary custody hearing — and therefore satisfied its obligation…”
State of Nm Ex Rel. Cyfd v. Marlene C., 212 P.3d 1142 (N.M. Ct. App. 2009). “See § 32A-4-24(A)-(E). {13} The Department contends that the district court made both the active efforts and the serious damage determinations at the earliest opportunity—at the ex parte custody order and the temporary custody hearing—and therefore satisfied its obligation under…”
— N.M. Stat. § 32A-4-24(F) — 3 cases
State ex rel. Child., Youth & Families Dep't v. Mercer-Smith, 2015 NMCA 093 (N.M. Ct. App. 2015). “See NMSA 1978, § 32A-4-24(F) (2009) (“When a child reaches eighteen years of age, all neglect and abuse orders affecting the child then in force automatically terminate except as provided in [NMSA 1978,] Section 32A-4-23.”
State, Child., Youth & Families Dep't v. Paul G., 2006 NMCA 038 (N.M. Ct. App. 2006). “The Abuse and Neglect Act limits dispositional judgments “vesting legal custody of a child in an agency” to “an indeterminate period not exceeding two years from the date entered.”
State ex rel. Child., Youth & Families Dep't v. Mercer-Smith (N.M. Ct. App. 2015). “See NMSA 1978, § 32A-4-24(F) (2009) 5 (“When a child reaches eighteen years of age, all neglect and abuse orders affecting 6 the child then in force automatically terminate except as provided in [NMSA 1978,] 7 Section 32A-4-23.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.