This summary was computer-generated without any editorial revision. It is not official, has not been checked for accuracy, and is NOT citable.
Facts
The case involves the termination of a mother's parental rights over her child. The Children, Youth & Families Department (CYFD) argued that the mother was unable to properly care for the child due to her struggles with medication management and a pattern of failing to fulfill parental responsibilities. The mother contended that she could have adequately parented the child if given more specialized treatment and time (paras 1-3).
Procedural History
- District Court of Doña Ana County: Terminated the mother's parental rights, determining it was in the child's best interests (para 1).
Parties' Submissions
- Appellant (Mother): Argued that CYFD failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence that the conditions leading to the case were unlikely to improve. She claimed that with more specialized treatment and time, she could have adequately parented the child. She also argued that CYFD did not provide reasonable accommodations under the ADA (paras 3-4).
- Appellee (CYFD): Asserted that they made reasonable efforts to assist the mother in adjusting the conditions that rendered her unable to care for the child and that the causes of neglect were unlikely to change in the foreseeable future (paras 2-3).
Legal Issues
- Was there sufficient evidence to support the termination of the mother's parental rights?
- Did CYFD make reasonable efforts to assist the mother in adjusting the conditions that rendered her unable to care for the child?
- Did CYFD fail to provide reasonable accommodations under the ADA?
Disposition
- The New Mexico Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's decision to terminate the mother's parental rights (para 7).
Reasons
Per Hanisee J. (Yohalem and Wray JJ. concurring): The court found that there was sufficient evidence to support the termination of the mother's parental rights, as CYFD made reasonable efforts to assist her, and the conditions of neglect were unlikely to change. The court noted that the mother did not preserve her ADA argument for appeal, as she failed to establish that she was a qualified individual with a disability under the ADA. The court emphasized the importance of permanency and stability for the child, and that parents do not have unlimited time to rehabilitate and reunite with their children (paras 2-5).