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 concerns the termination of a mother's parental rights over her three children. The mother suffers from paranoid-type schizophrenia, a probable bipolar personality disorder, and borderline intelligence. The children have been in the custody of their grandfather since 1993, where they have thrived. The grandfather is willing to adopt the children under a subsidized adoption program but is unwilling to assume permanent guardianship due to financial constraints. The mother contested the termination of her parental rights, arguing for a jury trial and claiming that her due process rights were violated (paras 1, 15-16).
Procedural History
- Children's Court of Curry County: Terminated the mother's parental rights, finding that she was unable to meet the children's needs and that adoption by the grandfather was in the children's best interests (headnotes, para 20).
Parties' Submissions
- Appellant (Mother): Argued that she was entitled to a jury trial in the termination proceedings based on constitutional and statutory grounds. She also claimed that her due process rights were violated and that the trial court should have imposed the least restrictive alternative, such as permanent guardianship with financial support for the grandfather. Additionally, she challenged the sufficiency of evidence supporting one of the trial court's findings (paras 1-2, 6, 11, 15, 19).
- Respondent (Children, Youth and Families Department): Contended that the Children's Code does not provide for a jury trial in termination proceedings and that the trial court's decision was supported by sufficient evidence. They argued that the termination of parental rights was in the best interests of the children (paras 3-4, 14, 18).
Legal Issues
- Does the Children's Code or the New Mexico Constitution provide a right to a jury trial in termination of parental rights cases?
- Was the mother's due process right violated by the trial court's decision to terminate her parental rights?
- Was there sufficient evidence to support the trial court's findings and decision to terminate the mother's parental rights?
Disposition
- The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's decision to terminate the mother's parental rights (para 21).
Reasons
Per Apodaca CJ (Bosson and Bustamante JJ. concurring):
Right to Jury Trial: The court held that the Children's Code does not provide for a jury trial in termination proceedings. The statutory language explicitly assigns decision-making authority to the judge, and historical legislative changes indicate an intentional removal of jury trials in such cases. Additionally, there was no constitutional right to a jury trial in termination cases, as such actions were historically equitable in nature and did not involve juries at the time the New Mexico Constitution was adopted in 1911 (paras 3-10).
Due Process: The court rejected the mother's argument that her due process rights were violated. It emphasized that the trial court appropriately balanced the children's best interests with the mother's rights. The court found no evidence of bias from the judge's familiarity with prior proceedings and noted that a jury trial is not constitutionally required in termination cases (paras 11-13).
Sufficiency of Evidence: The court found that the trial court's decision was supported by substantial evidence, including the mother's inability to meet the children's needs and the children's progress under the grandfather's care. While one finding regarding the grandfather's reasons for rejecting guardianship may have been erroneous, it was not necessary to the judgment and did not warrant reversal (paras 15-20).
Conclusion: The court affirmed the trial court's decision, holding that the mother was not entitled to a jury trial, her due process rights were not violated, and the evidence supported the termination of her parental rights (para 21).