AI Generated Opinion Summaries

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 Children, Youth, and Families Department (CYFD) filed a petition alleging that a minor child, E.M., was sexually abused by her adoptive father and that her mother failed to protect her. The allegations arose after E.M. disclosed the abuse to a school counselor, which led to an investigation involving social workers, law enforcement, and medical professionals. E.M. did not testify at trial, and the case relied heavily on hearsay evidence from various witnesses, including medical and psychological experts (paras 1-6).

Procedural History

• Children's Court, Bernalillo County: The court found E.M. to be an abused and neglected child under NMSA 1978, Section 32A-4-2(B)(1), (B)(2), and (C)(3) (1993) (para 1).

Parties' Submissions

• Appellants (Parents): Argued that the children's court erred in admitting hearsay testimony from five witnesses, that the remaining evidence was insufficient to support the judgment, and that the case should be reassigned to a different judge due to an improper comment by the trial judge. They also sought to strike the appellate guardian ad litem's answer brief (paras 1, 7, 32, 36).
• Respondent (CYFD): Contended that the hearsay evidence was admissible under exceptions to the hearsay rule, including the medical diagnosis or treatment exception, and that the evidence was sufficient to support the findings of abuse and neglect. They also argued that the best interests of the child justified the admission of certain evidence (paras 7-8, 25-30).

Legal Issues

• Was the hearsay testimony of five witnesses properly admitted under exceptions to the hearsay rule?
• Was there sufficient admissible evidence to support the finding of abuse and neglect by clear and convincing evidence?
• Should the case be reassigned to a different judge on remand due to an improper comment by the trial judge?
• Should the appellate guardian ad litem's answer brief be struck due to a conflict with the child's expressed position?

Disposition

• The court reversed the judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings consistent with its opinion (para 45).
• The court declined to order reassignment of the case to a different judge (para 35).
• The court denied the motion to strike the appellate guardian ad litem's answer brief (para 40).

Reasons

Per Wechsler J. (Donnelly and Bosson JJ. concurring):

• Hearsay Evidence: The court found that the testimony of Dr. Ornelas (pediatrician) was properly admitted under the medical diagnosis or treatment exception (Rule 11-803(D)) because the identity of the perpetrator was pertinent to her diagnosis and treatment (paras 9-18). However, the testimony of Dr. Montoya (psychologist), Ms. Yoder (social worker), and Ms. Hildebrand (school counselor) was improperly admitted as the necessary foundation for admissibility under Rule 11-803(D) or Rule 11-803(X) was not established (paras 19-30). Detective Laws' testimony was not hearsay and was properly admitted (para 22).
• Sufficiency of Evidence: The court concluded that the remaining admissible evidence was insufficient to support the finding of abuse and neglect by clear and convincing evidence, particularly given the trial guardian ad litem's minimal representation of the child's interests (para 45).
• Improper Comment by Judge: The court acknowledged the trial judge's inappropriate comment regarding the parents' decision not to testify but found no basis to reassign the case, as the issue was not preserved for appeal and did not demonstrate bias (paras 32-35).
• Guardian ad Litem's Role: The appellate guardian ad litem fulfilled her dual role of representing the child's best interests while also presenting the child's expressed position. The court emphasized the importance of the guardian ad litem's active participation in representing the child's interests, which was lacking at trial (paras 36-44).

The court remanded the case for further proceedings to determine whether the remaining admissible evidence constituted clear and convincing evidence of abuse and neglect (para 45).