State ex rel. Children, Youth & Families Dep't v. Stacy H. (In re Kasey D.)

STATE OF NEW MEXICO ex rel. CHILDREN,YOUTH & FAMILIES DEPARTMENT, Petitioner-Appellee, v. STACY H., Respondent-Appellant,andCHRISTOPHER D. and DANIEL W., Respondents,IN THE MATTER OF KASEY D., DAKIERA W., and DAKOTA W., Children.

No. A-1-CA-37893

COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO

January 27, 2020

This decision of the New Mexico Court of Appeals was not selected for publication in the New Mexico Appellate Reports. Refer to Rule 12-405 NMRA for restrictions on the citation of unpublished decisions. Electronic decisions may contain computer-generated errors or other deviations from the official version filed by the Court of Appeals.

APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF BERNALILLO COUNTY

Marie C. Ward, District Judge

Children, Youth & Families Department

Rebecca J. Liggett, Chief Children's Court Attorney

Santa Fe, NM

Kelly P. O'Neill, Children's Court Attorney

Albuquerque, NM

for Appellee Law Offices of Jane B. Yohalem

Jane B. Yohalem

Santa Fe, NM

for Appellant

Law Office of Alison Endicott-Quinones

Alison Endicott-Quinones

Albuquerque, NM

Guardian Ad Litem

DECISION

MEDINA, Judge.

{1} Stacy H. (Mother) appeals the termination of her parental rights to Dakota W., Dakiera W., and Kasey D. (collectively, Children). For the reasons that follow, we affirm.

BACKGROUND

{2} Because this is a non-precedential expedited bench decision, and the parties are familiar with the facts and procedural history of this case, we provide the following outline of events and reserve further discussion of the pertinent facts and testimony for our analysis. See In re Court of Appeals Caseload, Misc. Order No. 01-57, ¶ 4(C) (Sept. 19, 2016).

{3} On July 16, 2015, the Children, Youth and Families Department (CYFD) filed a petition alleging Children were abused and neglected by Mother and Children's fathers.¹ On February 10, 2016, and after a trial on the merits, the district court found that there was clear and convincing evidence that Mother abused and neglected Children as defined by the Children's Code, pursuant to NMSA 1978, Section 32A-4-2(B)(1), (B)(4), and (E)(2) (2009, amended 2018), and therefore entered an adjudicatory judgment and disposition as to Mother.² The district court placed Children in the legal custody of CYFD, which in turn placed Children in a relative foster care placement with their maternal grandparents (collectively, Grandparents). Approximately two years later, CYFD moved to terminate Mother's parental rights to Children. The district court held the termination of parental rights (TPR) evidentiary hearing over the course of two days. After taking judicial notice of its prior adjudicatory judgment finding Children abused and neglected, and hearing testimony from several CYFD workers and Children's grandmother, the district court found that the causes and conditions of Mother's abuse and neglect of Children were unlikely to change in the foreseeable future despite CYFD making reasonable efforts to assist her. Accordingly, the district court terminated Mother's parental rights. This appeal followed.

DISCUSSION

{4} Mother raises three arguments on appeal. First, Mother argues there was insufficient evidence to support the district court's adjudication that Children were abused and neglected. Second, Mother contends that there was insufficient evidence to support the district court's finding that CYFD made reasonable efforts to assist her in ameliorating the causes of her abuse and neglect of Children. Lastly, Mother contends that the district court improperly terminated her parental rights when permanent guardianship with Grandparents would have better served Children's needs. We address each argument in turn.

Standard of Review

{5} The standard of proof in both abuse and neglect adjudications and termination of parental rights is clear and convincing evidence. See NMSA 1978, § 32A-4-29(I) (2009); State ex rel. Children, Youth & Families Dep't v. Lance K., 2009-NMCA-054, ¶ 16, 146 N.M. 286, 209 P.3d 778. "Clear and convincing evidence is . . . evidence that instantly tilts the scales in the affirmative when weighed against the evidence in opposition and the fact finder's mind is left with an abiding conviction that the evidence is true." Lance K., 2009-NMCA-054, ¶ 16 (alteration, internal quotation marks, and citation omitted). Hence, when reviewing claims of evidentiary sufficiency in abuse and neglect proceedings, "we must determine whether the district court's decision is supported by substantial evidence of a clear and convincing nature." State ex rel. Children, Youth & Families Dep't v. Alfonso M.-E., 2016-NMCA-021, ¶ 26, 366 P.3d 282. "We will uphold the district court's judgment if, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the judgment, [the district court] could properly determine that the clear and convincing standard was met." Id. (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). Thus, the question before us is "whether the [district] court's conclusion, when viewed in the light most favorable to the decision below, was supported by substantial evidence, not whether the [district] court could have reached a different conclusion." State ex rel. Children, Youth & Families Dep't v. Patricia H., 2002-NMCA-061, ¶ 31, 132 N.M. 299, 47 P.3d 859. To the extent our analysis entails resolving issues of law, our review is de novo. State ex rel. Children, Youth & Families Dep't v. Maria C., 2004-NMCA-083, ¶ 17, 136 N.M. 53, 94 P.3d 796.

Substantial Evidence Supported Adjudication of Abuse and Neglect

{6} Preliminarily, we note that CYFD makes several arguments as to why our Court should not address the merits of Mother's sufficiency argument. However, we need not address CYFD's arguments because even assuming without deciding that Mother may challenge the sufficiency of the evidence supporting the abuse and neglect adjudication, we hold that substantial evidence supports the district court's adjudication.

{7} After hearing testimony from several witnesses over the course of two days, the district court found that Children were abused and neglected as a result of "[Mother's] substance abuse, domestic violence in [C]hildren's presence, out of control behavior[,]and parenting issues [that] negatively impacted her ability to ensure . . . [C]hildren's safety and well-being." The district court entered extensive findings of fact in support of its ruling, including: (1) an officer observed Mother's behavior as "out of control" and her home "to be in complete disarray, with items thrown around and broken" after responding to a report that Kasey's father had kidnapped Kasey; (2) Mother admitted that she used methamphetamine; (3) another officer responding to a domestic violence incident described Mother's demeanor as "animated and irate"; (4) a third officer responding to a domestic violence incident testified that Mother "was so out of control that she had to be placed in a patrol car for her safety, and the officers' safety"; (5) the same officer found "white powder all over the home"; and (6) a CYFD investigator observed Mother's home in disarray and found butane bottles and three methamphetamine pipes that were accessible to Children.

{8} Mother summarily contends the district court's adjudication was not supported by the evidence because (1) Kasey's father was the "sole problem" that led to Children being taking into custody, (2) Mother had a job and owned the home she was living in, (3) the court's concerns about her drug use were not well-founded, (4) her erratic behavior described by the witnesses was due to her being upset with Father and CYFD's intervention, and (5) her time in jail should not have been considered because her criminal case was reversed on appeal. Mother raises these arguments pursuant to State ex rel. Children, Youth & Families Dep't v. Alicia P., 1999-NMCA-098, ¶ 9, 127 N.M. 664, 986 P.2d 460 (recognizing that appellate counsel should present the parent's arguments even if counsel has no faith in them).

{9} However, Mother does not challenge any specific finding by the district court, nor does Mother support the majority of her arguments with citations to the record and relevant authority. See Rule 12-318(A)(4) NMRA (stating that an appellant's brief in chief "shall set forth a specific attack on any finding, or the finding shall be deemed conclusive" and that a contention that a finding is not supported by substantial evidence shall be deemed waived "unless the argument identifies with particularity the fact or facts that are not supported by substantial evidence"). Although we recognize that Mother's appellate counsel was obligated to raise her contentions, see Alicia P., 1999-NMCA-098, ¶ 9, we cannot address such contentions without the proper citations to the record and relevant authority. See Rule 12-318(A)(4) (stating that an appellant shall support her argument with citations to record proper, transcript of proceedings, or exhibits relied on); In re Adoption of Doe, 1984-NMSC-024, ¶ 2, 100 N.M.764, 676 P.2d 1329 ("We assume where arguments in briefs are unsupported by cited authority, counsel after diligent search, was unable to find any supporting authority. We therefore will not do this research for counsel. Issues raised in appellate briefs which are unsupported by cited authority will not be reviewed by us on appeal." (citations omitted)). Accordingly, given the district court's extensive findings of fact, we affirm the district court's adjudication of abuse and neglect. See State ex rel. Children, Youth & Families Dep't v. Senaida C., 2008-NMCA-007, ¶ 27, 143 N.M. 335, 176 P.3d 324 (declining to address arguments raised pursuant to Alicia P. that were unsupported by citations to the record or relevant authority).

Substantial Evidence Supported Termination of Parental Rights

{10} Next, Mother challenges, also pursuant to Alicia P., that the evidence did not support the district court's finding that CYFD made reasonable efforts to assist her. Reviewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the...