State Ex Rel. CYFD v. Spirit G. ( 2023 )

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citation of unpublished decisions.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.
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO
No. A-1-CA-41144
STATE OF NEW MEXICO ex rel.
CHILDREN, YOUTH & FAMILIES
DEPARTMENT,
Petitioner-Appellee,
v.
TANACIA L.,
Respondent,
and
SPIRIT G.,
Respondent-Appellant,
IN THE MATTER OF EDEN G.,
AARON G., and LANDON G.,
Children.
APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF SAN JUAN COUNTY
Bradford Dalley, District Court Judge
Children, Youth & Families Department
Mary McQueeney, Chief Children’s Court Attorney
Santa Fe, NM
Kelly P. O’Neill, Children’s Court Attorney
Albuquerque, NM
for Appellee
Susan C. Baker
El Prado, NM
for Appellant
Richard J. Austin P.C.
Richard J. Austin
Farmington, NM
Guardian Ad Litem
MEMORANDUM OPINION
MEDINA, Judge.
{1} Respondent-Appellant Spirit G. (Father) appealed following the termination of his
parental rights. We previously issued a notice of proposed summary disposition in which
we proposed to uphold the underlying decision. Father has filed a memorandum in
opposition. After due consideration, we affirm.
{2} We set forth the relevant background information and principles of law in the
notice of proposed summary disposition. Rather than reiterating, we will focus on the
content of the memorandum in opposition.
{3} Father continues to challenge the sufficiency of the evidence to establish the
reasonableness of the Children, Youth & Families Department’s (CYFD) efforts. [MIO
10-14] We remain unpersuaded. As described in the notice of proposed summary
disposition, CYFD created a treatment plan and endeavored to engage Father over a
period of roughly two years. [CN 3-4] However, Father was both uncommunicative and
noncompliant, and he made no apparent progress. We conclude that CYFD’s efforts
were reasonable, particularly in light of Father’s failure to participate. See State ex rel.
Child., Youth & Fams. Dep’t v. Patricia H., 2002-NMCA-061, ¶¶ 23, 28, 32 N.M. 299, 47
P.3d 859 (explaining that “[w]hat constitutes reasonable effort may vary with a number
of factors, such as the level of cooperation demonstrated by the parent,” and that “our
job is not to determine whether CYFD did everything possible; our task is limited by our
statutory scope of review to whether CYFD complied with the minimum required under
law”).
{4} Father now additionally contends that the Department failed to make reasonable
efforts because it did not adequately pursue the possibility of a guardianship/placement
with the paternal grandparent(s). [MIO 10-14] We disagree. As an initial matter, the
record reflects that Father failed to provide the names of any fit and willing relatives for
placement, [RP 497] and the paternal grandparent(s) did not apply. [RP 498] In any
event, failure to consider an adult relative placement does not provide a basis for
overturning the termination of parental rights. See State ex rel. Child., Youth & Fams.
Dep’t v. Laura J., 2013-NMCA-057, ⁋56, 301 P.3d 860 (indicating that where the
termination of parental rights was supported by clear and convincing evidence, failure to
investigate a particular relative to placement did not provide a basis for reversal). Even
if we were to assume that there might be instances in which pursuit of relative
placement could factor into the reasonable efforts analysis, Father fails to explain how
any shortcomings in CYFD’s placement decisions in this case outweigh CYFD’s other
efforts. As indicated in our calendar notice, the termination of Father’s parental rights
was supported by sufficient evidence of a clear and convincing nature. [CN 3-7] We are
not persuaded that the facts bearing upon the district court’s decision would have been
any different had CYFD made further efforts to investigate placement with the paternal
grandparent(s). We therefore conclude that Father has not presented a persuasive
argument or authority to show that relief is warranted. See id. ¶ 57.
{5} Accordingly, for the reasons stated in the notice of proposed summary
disposition and above, we affirm.
{6} IT IS SO ORDERED.
JACQUELINE R. MEDINA, Judge
WE CONCUR:
JENNIFER L. ATTREP, Chief Judge
ZACHARY A. IVES, Judge