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 case involves the termination of a father's parental rights to his three children due to findings of abuse, neglect, and presumptive abandonment. The father, who suffers from mental health impairments including chronic depression, anxiety, and cognitive disorders, argued that the New Mexico Children, Youth & Families Department (CYFD) failed to accommodate his disabilities under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) (paras 1, 3-4).

Procedural History

• District Court, Quay County: The district court terminated the father's parental rights based on findings of abuse, neglect, and presumptive abandonment under NMSA 1978, Sections 32A-4-28(B)(2) and 32A-4-28(B)(3) (2005) (para 1).

Parties' Submissions

• Appellant (Father): Argued that CYFD failed to accommodate his mental impairments as required by the ADA. He claimed that the district court had an independent obligation to explore the applicability of the ADA to his case, given the fundamental nature of parental rights (paras 2, 6).
• Respondent (CYFD): Asserted that the father failed to preserve the ADA issue in the district court and did not adequately develop the record to support his claim of being a qualified individual with a disability under the ADA (paras 2, 5, 8).

Legal Issues

• Did the district court err in terminating the father’s parental rights without adequately addressing his mental impairments under the ADA?
• Does the district court have an independent obligation to raise and explore the applicability of the ADA in termination of parental rights cases? (paras 2, 6-7)

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court’s decision to terminate the father’s parental rights (para 11).

Reasons

Per Bustamante J. (Wechsler and Robles JJ. concurring):

• The father conceded that the record supported a finding of presumptive abandonment under NMSA 1978, Section 32A-4-28(B)(3), by clear and convincing evidence, and he did not challenge the findings of abuse or neglect (para 1).
• The father failed to preserve the ADA issue in the district court. Specifically, he did not request findings or conclusions of law regarding his status as a qualified individual with a disability under the ADA, nor did he develop a sufficient factual and legal record to support his claim (paras 2, 5, 8).
• The court clarified that the burden to raise and argue ADA issues lies with the parent and their counsel, not the district court. District judges are not in a position to independently recognize or initiate inquiries into the applicability of the ADA, particularly in the early stages of termination proceedings (paras 7-9).
• The court emphasized that to preserve ADA-related issues, parents must assert their status as qualified individuals with disabilities and create a record sufficient for appellate review. This includes requesting relief under the ADA and supporting it with factual evidence (para 8).
• Given the inadequacies in the record, the court declined to analyze whether the ADA applies to termination of parental rights cases or what accommodations might be reasonable under the circumstances (para 10).