State ex rel. Children, Youth & Families Dep't v. Carmella M.

517 P.3d 284

STATE of New Mexico EX REL. CHILDREN, YOUTH & FAMILIES DEPARTMENT, Petitioner-Appellee,

v.CARMELLA M., Respondent-Appellant,andGarrett S.F., Respondent,In the Matter of Carlos F., Child.

State of New Mexico ex rel. Children, Youth & Families Department, Petitioner-Appellee,

v.Carmella M., Respondent,andGarrett S.F., Respondent-Appellant,In the Matter of Carlos F., Child.

Nos. A-1-CA-39257 & A-1-CA-39258 (consolidated for purpose of opinion).

Court of Appeals of New Mexico.

Filing Date: March 22, 2022

Children, Youth & Families Department, Mary McQueeney, Acting Chief Children's Court Attorney, Robert Retherford, Children's Court Attorney, Santa Fe, NM, for Appellee

Law Offices of Nancy L. Simmons, P.C., Nancy L. Simmons, Albuquerque, NM, for Appellant Carmella M.

Susan C. Baker, El Prado, NM, for Appellant Garrett S.F.

Johnna L. Studebaker, Santa Fe, NM, Guardian Ad Litem

ATTREP, Judge.

{1} Carmella M. (Mother) and Garrett S.F. (Father) (collectively, Parents) separately appeal the district court's adjudication of abuse, based on the endangerment definition of "abused child" in NMSA 1978, Section 32A-4-2(B)(4) (2018), and its finding of aggravated circumstances, under Section 32A-4-2(C)(1), as to their son, Carlos F. (Child).¹ Parents challenge the sufficiency of the evidence to support both the adjudication of abuse and the finding of aggravated circumstances.

{2} This case arose from the unexpected death of Child's older sibling, Santiago F. (Sibling). The Children, Youth and Families Department's (CYFD) allegations of abuse as to Child are based on the injuries or abuse that befell Sibling. In particular, CYFD argues that Child is an "abused child" based either on (1) the theory that Sibling was physically abused by someone and this alone renders Child endangered, or (2) the theory that Parents knew or should have known about Sibling's injuries or abuse and failed to act appropriately in the face of their actual or constructive knowledge and this renders Child endangered. Because the culpability or responsibility of Parents must somehow be established to adjudicate a child abused, CYFD's first theory fails as a matter of law. Because CYFD's second theory is not supported by substantial evidence in the record, it likewise fails. We accordingly conclude that CYFD did not meet its burden to prove by clear and convincing evidence that Child is an "abused child" under Section 32A-4-2(B)(4), and we reverse the adjudication of abuse. We do not reach Parents’ additional claims of error.

BACKGROUND

{3} Soon after Sibling's death, CYFD filed a petition alleging (1) abuse of Child, as defined in Section 32A-4-2(B)(1) and (B)(4), and (2) aggravated circumstances, as defined in Section 32A-4-2(C). It also filed an ex parte motion for custody of Child, which the district court granted. Child was eventually placed in the care of Mother's mother and stepfather. The district court's judgment of adjudication was rendered more than one and one half years after the filing of the petition. The delay in the adjudicatory proceedings resulted in part from a delay in obtaining the autopsy results for Sibling. The following recitation of facts is derived from testimony at the adjudicatory proceedings.

{4} Sibling was born premature to Father and another woman. Sibling entered CYFD custody soon after birth, before Father gained custody of him. For a period of time in Sibling's early life, while Father was incarcerated, Sibling lived with Mother and her parents. In time, Father and Mother began living together, Sibling came back into Father's custody, and Child was born to Parents. Sibling had developmental delays. His gross motor movement was impaired, and he was largely nonverbal. At the time of his death at nearly five years old, Sibling was walking, but still in diapers. Family members described that Sibling would sometimes have tantrums and throw his body around on the ground and on other objects when he became angry or frustrated.

{5} On the day before Sibling's death, Mother's brother (Brother), his wife, and their two young sons spent the day at Parents’ home with Mother, Father, Sibling, and Child. Brother described that he and Parents played with the four children. Brother did not see anything concerning in how Mother was caring for Sibling or Child. Brother often left his two young sons in Mother's care.

{6} On the day Sibling died, he awoke at around 3:00 a.m., and Mother gave him some water before putting him back to bed. She later found him at the bathroom sink running his hands under the water and looking dazed. She asked him what was wrong, but he did not respond. She then took Sibling to another room, and as he was seated on the floor, he fell over, apparently unable to support himself. Concerned, Mother woke Father, and Mother called 911. At some point, Sibling stopped breathing, and Father began giving him CPR. After paramedics arrived, Sibling was taken to the emergency room. He died later that day at the hospital.

{7} The forensic pathologist who performed the autopsy on Sibling's body reported that the cause of death was diabetes insipidus, with a significant contributing condition of blunt head trauma. Diabetes insipidus is the body's inability to handle water in the blood, which can elevate salt levels in the blood; elevated salt levels, in turn, can cause seizures, damage brain cells, and cause death. The forensic pathologist testified that the autopsy also revealed multiple areas of blunt force trauma to the head and the torso. One such trauma caused a subdural hemorrhage that was estimated to have predated Sibling's death by about two to four days. Of the external bruises on Sibling's body, the only one the forensic pathologist was able to date was behind Sibling's right ear, which he estimated to be at least eighteen hours old. Ultimately, the forensic pathologist deemed the manner of death undetermined because, whether the diabetes insipidus was a preexisting organic condition or caused by blunt head trauma, was unknown. CYFD's expert in forensic pediatrics also testified to her opinion that some of the trauma on Sibling's head and torso was indicative of abuse. Parents’ expert witness in anatomic, clinical, and forensic pathology opined that a pineal gland tumor in Sibling's brain (and not some external force) triggered the diabetes insipidus and that Sibling died of natural causes.

{8} After the close of evidence, the district court ordered the parties to submit written closing arguments and proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law. Parents and Child's guardian ad litem's submissions proposed that Sibling's death was due to natural causes, that Child not be adjudicated as abused, and that the petition be dismissed. CYFD proposed that Sibling's death was nonaccidental and that Child be adjudicated abused.

{9} The district court orally announced its findings of fact and conclusions of law, which then were memorialized in the adjudicatory judgment. The district court, quoting the statutory language of Section 32A-4-2(B)(4), concluded Child is an abused child as to Mother and Father as follows: "[Child]’s parents have knowingly, intentionally, or negligently placed the child in a situation that may endanger the child's life or health." The district court, quoting the statutory language of Section 32A-4-2(C)(1), concluded aggravated circumstances existed as to Mother and Father as follows: "[Child]’s parent or custodian has attempted, conspired to cause, or caused great bodily harm to the child or great bodily harm or death to the child's sibling."² In toto, the district court's findings of fact were:

a. [Sibling] died February 18, 2019;

b. [Sibling] was an older sibling of [Child]; [Mother] and [Father] are the parents of [Child];

c. The cause of the death of [Sibling] was diabetes insipidus, with a significant contributing factor of blunt head trauma ;

d. Diabetes insipidus is a condition caused by the disregulation of glandular functions, flushing fluid from the body and resulting in a dangerous imbalance of minerals;

e. The cause of the diabetes insipidus that resulted in [Sibling]’s death was blunt force trauma to the head, shown by a significant subdural hemorrhage and the accumulation of [sixty] milliliters of blood in the brain and skull cavity;

f. It is evident from the healing in the subdural hemorrhage that some of the blunt head trauma [Sibling] suffered was inflicted more than [eighteen] hours prior to [P]arents’ call to first responders;

g. Although there is evidence [Sibling] was prone to accidents, the trauma and bruising in some areas of the head and torso are inconsistent with accidental injury; and

h. The opinion offered by [Parents’] expert witness, that a pineal-glial cyst caused the deadly condition diabetes insipidus, disregards the significant evidence of blunt force trauma to [Sibling] and subarachnoid hemorrhaging in close proximity to the pituitary gland.

{10} After Parents appealed the adjudicatory judgment, CYFD moved for a permanent guardianship, pursuant to NMSA 1978, Sections 32A-4-31 (2005) and -32 (2009), seeking the appointment of Mother's mother and stepfather as permanent guardians of Child and contending, among other things, that "termination of parental rights is not in ... Child's best interests." The district court granted the motion, appointed Mother's mother and stepfather as Child's permanent guardians, reserved Parents’ right to appeal the adjudicatory judgment, and dismissed CYFD from the district court action.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

{11} The burden was on CYFD to establish through clear and convincing evidence that Child was abused. See State ex rel. Child., Youth & Fams. Dep't v. Amanda H. , 2007-NMCA-029, ¶ 22, 141 N.M. 299, 154 P.3d 674 ; see also NMSA 1978, § 32A-4-20(H) (2014) (establishing the clear and convincing standard for adjudications of abuse and neglect). To evaluate Parents’ sufficiency challenge on appeal, "we must determine whether the district...