{ "id": 4335097, "name": "STATE OF NEW MEXICO ex rel. CHILDREN, YOUTH AND FAMILIES DEPARTMENT, Petitioner-Appellee, v. RAQUEL M., Respondent-Appellant, IN THE MATTER OF ANGEL N., n/k/a CISCO N., Child", "name_abbreviation": "State ex rel. Children, Youth & Families Department v. Raquel M.", "decision_date": "2013-05-24", "docket_number": "No. 34,127; Docket No. 31,869", "first_page": "138", "last_page": "150", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "2013-NMCA-061" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "N.M.", "id": 8835, "name": "Supreme Court of New Mexico" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 52, "name_long": "New Mexico", "name": "N.M." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "2004-NMCA-083", "category": "reporters:neutral", "reporter": "NMCA", "case_ids": [ 1224600 ], "weight": 5, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "\u00b6 45" }, { "parenthetical": "defining aggravated circumstances as those circumstances in which the parent has had parental rights over a sibling terminated involuntarily" }, { "page": "\u00b6 45" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nm/136/0053-01" ] }, { "cite": "285 P.3d 622", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "P.3d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "2012-NMSC-029", "category": "reporters:neutral", "reporter": "NMSC", "case_ids": [ 4188995 ], "pin_cites": [ { "page": "\u00b6 47" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nm-app/2/0433-01" ] }, { "cite": "2007-NMCA-135", "category": "reporters:neutral", "reporter": "NMCA", "case_ids": [ 3691502 ], "weight": 3, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "\u00b6 15" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nm/142/0705-01" ] }, { "cite": "424 U.S. 319", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "U.S.", "case_ids": [ 12026449 ], "year": 1976, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "335" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/us/424/0319-01" ] }, { "cite": "2001-NMSC-028", "category": "reporters:neutral", "reporter": "NMSC", "case_ids": [ 352271 ], "weight": 3, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "\u00b6 9" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nm/130/0734-01" ] }, { "cite": "2003-NMSC-015", "category": "reporters:neutral", "reporter": "NMSC", "case_ids": [ 15530 ], "weight": 11, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "\u00b6 18" }, { "page": "\u00b6 18" }, { "parenthetical": "internal quotation marks and citation omitted" }, { "page": "\u00b6 19" }, { "page": "\u00b6 20" }, { "page": "\u00b6 25" }, { "page": "\u00b6 19" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nm/133/0827-01" ] }, { "cite": "2003-NMCA-017", "category": "reporters:neutral", "reporter": "NMCA", "case_ids": [ 15734 ], "weight": 9, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "\u00b6 2" }, { "page": "\u00b6 18" }, { "page": "\u00b6 5" }, { "page": "\u00b6 18" }, { "page": "\u00b6 7" }, { "page": "\u00b6\u00b6 7, 16" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nm/133/0136-01" ] }, { "cite": "2004-NMSC-001", "category": "reporters:neutral", "reporter": "NMSC", "case_ids": [ 77119 ], "weight": 3, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "\u00b6 13" } ], "opinion_index": 1, "case_paths": [ "/nm/134/0768-01" ] }, { "cite": "2004-NMSC-032", "category": "reporters:neutral", "reporter": "NMSC", "case_ids": [ 1224669 ], "weight": 4, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "\u00b6 10" } ], "opinion_index": 1, "case_paths": [ "/nm/136/0372-01" ] }, { "cite": "2010-NMSC-004", "category": "reporters:neutral", "reporter": "NMSC", "case_ids": [ 4245031 ], "weight": 7, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "\u00b6 15" }, { "page": "\u00b6 15" } ], "opinion_index": 1, "case_paths": [ "/nm/147/0512-01" ] }, { "cite": "267 P.3d 65", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "P.3d", "opinion_index": 1 }, { "cite": "2012-NMSC-002", "category": "reporters:neutral", "reporter": "NMSC", "case_ids": [ 4188874 ], "pin_cites": [ { "page": "\u00b6 6" } ], "opinion_index": 1, "case_paths": [ "/nm-app/1/0102-01" ] }, { "cite": "2007-NMCA-156", "category": "reporters:neutral", "reporter": "NMCA", "case_ids": [ 3784921 ], "weight": 3, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "\u00b6 17" } ], "opinion_index": 1, "case_paths": [ "/nm/143/0195-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 1230, "char_count": 38466, "ocr_confidence": 0.824, "pagerank": { "raw": 4.03580807328026e-08, "percentile": 0.14665102096685945 }, "sha256": "8acb3eccf810ae7439d27cf434d56922f6071a4e7a3a0a7e1ff70f24f90efcb4", "simhash": "1:b28ac6a23a9bf4ef", "word_count": 6022 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T21:50:37.461651+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [ "JONATHAN B. SUTIN, Judge", "RODERICK T. KENNEDY, Chief Judge", "TIMOTHY L. GARCIA, Judge, dissenting.", "TIMOTHY L. GARCIA, Judge" ], "parties": [ "STATE OF NEW MEXICO ex rel. CHILDREN, YOUTH AND FAMILIES DEPARTMENT, Petitioner-Appellee, v. RAQUEL M., Respondent-Appellant, IN THE MATTER OF ANGEL N., n/k/a CISCO N., Child." ], "opinions": [ { "text": "OPINION\nSUTIN, Judge.\nRaquel M. (Mother) appeals the district court\u2019s judgment terminating her parental rights to Angel N., now known as Cisco N. (Child). Based upon its finding that Child had been subjected to aggravated circumstances \u2014 specifically, that Mother\u2019s parental rights to Child\u2019s sibling had previously been terminated \u2014 the district court relieved the Department of its obligation to make further reasonable efforts to reunify the family. Mother contends that because the prior termination was the subject of a pending appeal in this Court, her right to due process was violated by the aggravated circumstances finding. We conclude that Mother\u2019s due process rights were not violated, and we affirm.\nLEGAL BACKGROUND\nWhen a child is found to be neglected or abused, the district court must order the Children, Youth and Families Department (the Department) to design and implement a treatment plan that reflects \u201creasonable efforts\u201d on behalf of the Department to preserve and reunify the family. NMSA 1978, \u00a7 32A-4-22(C) (2009); see also State ex rel. Children, Youth & Families Dep't v. Amy B., 2003-NMCA-017 \u00b6 2, 133 N.M. 136, 61 P.3d 845 (explaining that the treatment plan shall outline the Department\u2019s reasonable efforts to reunify the family). Subject to court approval of the treatment plan, the child\u2019s parent is ordered to cooperate with its dictates. Section 32A-4-22(C). In some circumstances, however, the court may relieve the Department of its obligation to employ reasonable efforts at reunification, including its obligation to implement a treatment plan. Id. One such circumstance is a finding, by the court, that the parent has subjected the child to aggravated circumstances. Section 32A-4-22(C)(2). By definition, \u201caggravated circumstances\u201d includes those circumstances in which the parent has had parental rights over a sibling of the child terminated involuntarily. NMSA 1978, \u00a7 32A-4-2(C)(4) (2009).\nA finding of aggravated circumstances also plays a role in the termination of parental rights. \u201cThe Children\u2019s Code gives the [district] court the authority to terminate the parental rights of an abusive or neglectful parent.\u201d State ex rel. Children, Youth & Families Dep\u2019t v. Mafin M., 2003-NMSC-015, \u00b6 18, 133 N.M. 827, 70 P.3d 1266. Ordinarily, the court may not terminate parental rights unless the court determines \u201cthat the conditions and causes of the neglect and abuse are unlikely to change in the foreseeable future despite reasonable efforts by the [D]epartment... to assist the parent in adjusting the conditions that render the parent unable to properly care for the child.\u201d NMSA 1978, \u00a7 32A-4-28(B)(2) (2005) (emphasis added). In cases where the parent has subjected the child to aggravated circumstances, however, the district court may find that efforts by the Department are unnecessary. Section 32A-4-28(B)(2)(b). Under those circumstances, where the Department is excused of its reasonable-efforts obligation, in order to succeed on a motion to terminate parental rights, the Department must still prove that the conditions and causes of the abuse and neglect would not change in the foreseeable future. Amy B., 2003-NMCA-017, \u00b6 18.\nFACTS\nOn December 16, 2010, the district court entered a judgment terminating Mother\u2019s parental rights to a sibling of Child. Mother appealed the December 16 judgment to this Court. See In re Isiah M., No. 31,057, slip op. (N.M. Ct. App. March 27, 2012). On February 4, 2011, while Mother\u2019s appeal to this Court was pending, the Department filed an abuse and neglect petition alleging that Mother had abused and/or neglected Child.\nThe abuse and neglectpetition alleged the following facts in support of its request that the district court find that Child was neglected and/or abused. On January 31, 2011, the Department responded to an emergency law enforcement referral alleging physical neglect of Child. Law enforcement had entered a residence due to outstanding warrants for the adult residents. When they entered the residence, the officers \u201cobserved what they believed to be adults trying to place [Child, who was less than three months old at the time] into a hole in the floor.\u201d There was drug paraphernalia throughout the residence. Mother was arrested pursuant to outstanding warrants. Child was taken into the custody of the Department. As of the filing date of the petition, Mother was incarcerated. Based on a mouth swab, Child tested positive for methamphetamine, indicating that Child had been exposed to the drug within thirty-six hours prior to being tested.\nThe petition also alleged that Mother had subjected Child to aggravated circumstances based on the December 16, 2010, judgment that terminated her parental rights to Child\u2019s sibling, Isiah. Owing to the aggravated circumstance of the December 16, 2010, termination of Mother\u2019s parental rights to Isiah, the Department requested to be relieved of its obligation to make reasonable efforts to preserve and reunify the family as to Child, pursuant to Section 32A-4-22(C)(2).\nAlso on February 4,2011, the Department filed its affidavit in support of an ex parte custody order. In greater detail and with additional facts, the affidavit essentially expanded upon the facts presented in the abuse and neglect petition. Among other facts, the affidavit alleged that there was a bottle, a blanket, and a cell phone in one of two holes in the floor. Further, law enforcement officers were said to have observed a marijuana pipe and two methamphetamine pipes in the living room, as well as a purse containing foil and plastic baggies, which the officers suspected to be related to drugs. Mother had approximately fifteen warrants for her arrest.\nOn February 7, 2011, the district court filed an ex parte custody order, mandating that Child remain in the Department\u2019s custody \u201cuntil further order of the [cjourt.\u201d On March 8 and April 19, 2011, the district court held an adjudicatory hearing on the Department\u2019s abuse and neglect petition. In its disposition order, the court found by clear and convincing evidence that Mother\u2019s parental rights to a sibling of Child\u2019s had been involuntarily terminated on December 16, 2010. Based on that prior termination of parental rights, the district court found aggravated circumstances as to Mother. The court also found that \u201cfurther treatment efforts by [the Department] would be futile\u201d; accordingly, the court relieved the Department of making further efforts to work a treatment plan with Mother.\nOn May 17, 2011, the district court held an initial permanency hearing. The court noted that owing to its April 19 finding of aggravated circumstances, it had relieved the Department of making reasonable efforts and implementing a treatment plan. The court found that \u201c[t]he permanency plan proposed by the Department is adoption[,]\u201d which plan the court found appropriate. The court ordered that Child\u2019s permanency plan would be adoption.\nOn July 11, 2011, the Department moved to terminate Mother\u2019s parental rights to Child. In its motion, the Department stated that the \u201cfacts and circumstances supporting . .. termination\u201d were that Child was subjected to aggravated circumstances in that the parental rights to a sibling had been terminated involuntarily and that termination of parental rights would promote the physical, mental, and emotional welfare needs of Child.\nA hearing on the Department\u2019s motion to terminate Mother\u2019s parental rights was held on September 23, 2011. On October 20,2011, the district court entered its decision to terminate Mother\u2019s parental rights. On appeal, Mother does not challenge the district court\u2019s factual findings. In pertinent part, those findings included that Mother has a chronic illegal drug abuse problem; Mother\u2019s parental rights were involuntarily terminated in regard to Isiah; when Child was taken into Department custody, \u201che had a high level of methamphetamine in his system\u201d; and Mother had been \u201cin and out of jail since the beginning of this case.\u201d Specifically, the court found that Mother was incarcerated from January 31, 2011, through early May 2011; and on September 13, 2011, Mother was arrested again for allegedly violating the conditions of her probation.\nThe court found that after Mother was released from jail in early May 2011, she requested visitation with Child, and while she was incarcerated, she had some limited visitation, but none after May 17, 2011, and beyond her initial request for visitation, Mother made no further contact with the Department. The court also found that Mother took advantage of services that were available to her during her January to May 2011 incarceration, but after her release she did nothing to eliminate the causes and conditions that brought Child into custody. In the court\u2019s view, those causes and conditions included:\nA. Mother has never had a home.\nB. Mother has never had employment.\nC. Mother continues to use illegal drugs (the alleged probation violation is for the use of illegal drugs).\nD. Mother has never entered, let alone completed, any drug treatment plan.\nE. Mother did not follow up on working on her GED.\nIn addition, the court found that \u201c[t]he only progress Mother has ever made has been when she has been incarcerated[,]\u201d and it is unknown when Mother will be released from incarceration. Based on the foregoing facts, the court concluded that \u201c[t]he conditions and causes of the neglect and abuse that brought Child [into] custody are unlikely to change in the foreseeable future.\u201d\nThe court also entered findings of fact and conclusions of law in regard to Child\u2019s interests. The court found that Child had been in the care of foster parents since Child was taken into the Department\u2019s custody, and the foster parents wished to adopt Child. The court found that Child had bonded with the foster parents in a parent/child relationship. And the court concluded that it was in the best interest of Child to have Mother\u2019s parental rights terminated and Child made available for adoption.\nIn accordance with its findings offact and conclusions of law, the court concluded that Mother\u2019s rights would be terminated pursuant to Section 32A-4-28(B)(2). On November 22, 2011, the court, referencing its October 20 decision, entered its judgment terminating Mother\u2019s parental rights. On March 27, 2012, this Court entered a Decision affirming the termination of Mother\u2019s parental rights to Child\u2019s sibling. See In re Isiah M.\nMother appeals from the district court\u2019s judgment terminating her parental rights to Child. On Appeal, Mother argues that she was deprived of due process when the district court found aggravated circumstances based upon the earlier termination of her parental rights, when that case had yet to be resolved on appeal. She also argues that the Legislature did not intend to authorize termination of parental rights based on aggravated circumstances when the prior termination of parental rights judgment is pending on appeal.\nWe conclude that the statutory procedures employed in the district court provided protection against the risk of an erroneous deprivation of parental rights, even with a finding of aggravated circumstances, and even when there existed a possibility the foundational j udgment supp orting that finding could be reversed on appeal. And we do not believe that additional or substitute procedural safeguards are required. Also, we reject Mother\u2019s legislative intent argument. We affirm.\nDISCUSSION\nMootness\nAs an initial matter, we reject the argument made both by the Department and the Guardian ad Litem that Mother\u2019s appeal is moot because the earlier termination was ultimately affirmed by this Court. A case is moot when there exists no actual controversy and the appellate court cannot grant actual relief. Gunaji v. Macias, 2001-NMSC-028, \u00b6 9, 130 N.M. 734, 31 P.3d 1008. Here, Mother\u2019s due process claim amounts to the contention that, in Mother\u2019s words, \u201cthe district court\u2019s premature decision irreparably harmed Mother\u2019s chances of reuniting with Child.\u201d This constitutes an actual controversy for which we could grant the \u201cactual relief\u2019 of remanding the case with instructions to the Department to make reasonable efforts to assist Mother to reunify with Child. Accordingly, we conclude that Mother\u2019s appeal is not moot. We turn now to a consideration of the merits of Mother\u2019s appeal.\nStandard of Review\n\u201c[T]he right to raise one\u2019s child is a fundamental right protected by the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution}.]\u201d Mafin M., 2003-NMSC-015, \u00b6 18. Termination proceedings must therefore be conducted in a constitutional manner that affords the parent due process of law. Id. \u201cDue process of law requires that termination proceedings be conducted with scrupulous fairness to the parent.\u201d Id. (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). We review de novo the question whether Mother\u2019s due process rights were violated when the district court terminated her parental rights. Id. \u00b6 17.\nTo determine whether , due process was satisfied in a termination proceeding, we employ the three-part balancing test of Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319, 335 (1976). Mafin M., 2003-NMSC-015, \u00b6 19. That test requires the weighing of (1) Mother\u2019s interest; (2) the risk to Mother of an erroneous deprivation of such interest through the procedures used, and the probable value, if any, of additional or substitute procedural safeguards; and (3) the government\u2019s interest. Id. Our Supreme Court has recognized an equal balance between a parent\u2019s fundamental interest in regaining a parent-child relationship and the state\u2019s interest in protecting the welfare of children. Id. \u00b6 20. In light of that balance, our Supreme Court has stated that \u201cthe decisive issue centers on the second factor of the Mathews test.\u201d Mafin M., 2003-NMSC-015, \u00b6 20.\nMother\u2019s Due Process Argument\nMother argues that finding aggravated circumstances on the basis of a prior termination of parental rights that \u201cmay well be reversed\u201d on appeal creates a significant risk of an erroneous deprivation of her parental rights in regard to Child. In Mother\u2019s view, had she been afforded the time and opportunity to work a treatment plan, with the Department\u2019s assistance, the result of the proceedings in r\u00e9gard to Child may well have been different.\nMother\u2019s argument rests upon the premise that the propriety of the prior termination was placed \u201cin doubt\u201d while her appeal of the prior termination of her parental rights was unresolved in this Court. Mother reasons that the risk of an erroneous deprivation stemmed from the possibility that, had the earlier judgment terminating her parental rights been reversed by this Court, the aggravated circumstances finding, the corresponding deprivation of a treatment plan and lack of Department support, and lack of time to achieve treatment goals, would have been based upon a prior erroneous termination. According to Mother, had she received a treatment plan, Department support, and time to achieve treatment goals, she may have been able to reunify with Child. Mother contends that because of the court\u2019s premature determination of aggravated circumstances, termination of her parental rights to Child was a \u201cvirtual certainty[.j\u201d That virtually certain termination of her rights to Child would thus have been based upon an erroneous assumption regarding her ability to remedy the conditions that rendered her unable to properly care for Child\u2019s sibling. See \u00a7 32A-4-28(B)(2) (stating the basis upon which a court may terminate a parent\u2019s rights to his or her child).\nMother argues that the risk of an erroneous decision arising out of the procedure employed here is \u201cunacceptably high\u201d when measured against the importance of the right at stake \u2014 that is, her fundamental right to parent Child. She further argues that highly effective substitute procedures are readily available and that their implementation would \u201cfar better [ensure] a fair and accurate decision, [and would] cause little delay in finality for [Child].\u201d More specifically, Mother argues that an appropriate \u201calternative to rushing to find aggravated circumstances before a judgment [has been disposed of] on appeal is to delay [the aggravated circumstances] determination and to require [the Department] to both put in place a treatment plan and [to] offer the parent assistance in working that plan.\u201d In Mother\u2019s view, delaying an aggravated circumstances finding during the pendency of an appeal from the earlier termination decision is a viable alternative that would conform with the routine functioning of the Department and the district court. See, e.g., \u00a7 32A-4-22(C); NMSA 1978, \u00a7 32A-4-25 (2009); NMSA 1978, \u00a7 32A-4-25.1 (2009).\nMother\u2019s Due Process Argument Is Unpersuasive\nUnder the facts in this case, we are not persuaded that the district court\u2019s aggravated circumstances finding, while a prior termination was pending on appeal, engendered a risk of an erroneous deprivation of Mother\u2019s parental rights. The aggravated circumstances finding did not condemn her to failure or lay the ground work for the inevitable termination of her parental rights to Child. Mother was free, on her own behalf, to engage in efforts toward reunification, yet she failed to do so. See Amy B., 2003-NMCA-017, \u00b6 5 (recognizing that, notwithstanding a finding of aggravated circumstances, the mother was not \u201cprecluded . . . from making efforts on her own behalf in an attempt to alleviate the conditions that led to the abuse and neglect\u201d). For example, among other things, Mother continued to use drugs throughout the pendency of this case, and she remained unemployed and without a home.\nAdditionally, the district court may not terminate parental rights to a child absent a finding \u201cthat the conditions and causes ofthe neglect and abuse are unlikely to change in the foreseeable future}.]\u201d Section 32A-4-28(B)(2). This finding is required regardless of aggravated circumstances. Amy B., 2003-NMCA-017, \u00b6 18. And it must be supported by clear and convincing evidence. See Mafin M., 2003-NMSC-015, \u00b6 25 (recognizing that the Department is required to present clear and convincing evidence to support termination of a parent\u2019s parental rights). Thus, the risk of an erroneous deprivation was minimal because had Mother exhibited a sincere, active, and productive effort to reunify with Child, and had she acted to dispel the concerns that gave rise to statutory exception to the treatment plan and D epartment efforts requirements, she may well have prevailed in overcoming the Department\u2019s contention that the conditions and causes of the neglect and abuse were unlikely to change in the foreseeable future. As it stands, however, Mother does not dispute the \u201cclear and convincing\u201d nature of the evidence that supported the district court\u2019s decision to terminate her parental rights in this case.\nWe next consider the probable value of additional or substitute procedural safeguards that might have been employed in this case. Mother suggests only one such procedural safeguard \u2014 that is, to have required the district court to delay an aggravated circumstances finding until the earlier judgment was resolved on appeal and, in the interim, to have provided her with a treatment plan aimed at reunification. Under the facts of this case, Mother\u2019s argument is unavailing. As indicated in the earlier paragraphs, we do not view the risk of erroneous deprivation under the circumstances to have been more than minimal. That view is fortified by the fact that this Court affirmed the termination of Mother\u2019s parental rights to Isiah four months after the termination of Mother\u2019s parental rights to Child. Had the circumstances in this case including the timing of the events been substantially different, Mother may have had a stronger position, however, under these facts, Mother\u2019s argument provides no basis for reversing the termination of parental rights and requiring the district court to order the Department to engage in reasonable efforts toward reunification of Mother and Child.\nWe do not foreclose the possibility that in some cases where a prior termination of parental rights is pending appeal, the facts or circumstances of the case may call for delaying an aggravated circumstances determination pending the outcome of the appeal. Whether the court should make an aggravated circumstances determination and the timing of such a determination is properly left to the sound discretion of the district court. See \u00a7 32A-4-22(C); Amy B., 2003-NMCA-0.17, \u00b6 14 (recognizing the court\u2019s discretion to find aggravated circumstances). Despite Mother\u2019s desire that we do so, we will not attempt either to suggest guidelines or to impose a set of bright-line factors to guide the court\u2019s discretionary determination in that regard.\nIn sum, we disagree with Mother\u2019s due process arguments relating to the district court\u2019s aggravated circumstances finding and the timing of that finding. Under the second Mathews factor, we conclude that the risk to Mother of an erroneous deprivation under these circumstances was minimal and that no additional or substitute procedural safeguards were required. See Mafin M., 2003-NMSC-015, \u00b6 19. Therefore, we reject Mother\u2019s due process claim.\nMother\u2019s Legislative Intent Argument\nSide-by-side with her due process argument, Mother argues that the district court\u2019s use of her prior termination of parental rights that was pending appeal constituted reasonable reversible error because it was contrary to legislative intent. Mother argues that such a procedure is inconsistent with two purposes of the Children\u2019s Code, specifically, (1) the preservation of the unity of the family whenever possible, and (2) the provision of judicial and other procedures in which the parties are assured a fair hearing and their constitutional and other legal rights are recognized and enforced. See NMSA 1978, \u00a7 32A-1-3(A), (B) (2009). Mother also argues that the Legislature\u2019s use of the past tense in providing the definition of aggravated circumstances in Section 32A-4-2(C)(4) indicates that the Legislature intended the prior termination of parental rights to provide the basis of an aggravated circumstances only where the \u201cprior termination of parental rights was absolutely final.\u201d We reject Mother\u2019s arguments.\nFirst, to the extent that Mother is arguing that because state law incorporates notions of due process, the proceedings violated state law, having already rejected Mother\u2019s due process claim, we likewise reject her contention. Second, Mother overlooks the fact that the preservation of family unity \u201cwhenever possible\u201d is a secondary consideration, with the primary consideration being \u201cthe care, protection[,] and wholesome mental and physical development of children[.]\u201d Section 32A-1-3(A) (stating that the legislative purposes of the Children\u2019s Code include \u201cfirst to provide for the care, protection[,] and wholesome mental and physical development of children . . . and then to preserve the unity of the family whenever possible\u201d and explaining that the health and safety of children are the \u201cparamount concern\u201d (emphasis added)). To that end, the district court has been given discretion to alleviate the Department\u2019s burden to engage in reasonable efforts at reunification under specific circumstances, including the prior termination of parental rights to a child\u2019s sibling. See \u00a7\u00a7 32A-4-2(C)(4), -22(C)(2).\nThe enactment of the aggravated circumstances provisions was a response to the federally recognized problem in abuse and neglect cases of a tendency to \u201cerr on the side of protecting the rights of parents. . . . [The result of which was that] too many children are subjected to long spells of foster care or are returned to families that reabuse them.\u201d Amy B., 2003-NMCA-017, \u00b6 7 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). As recognized in Amy B., the aggravated circumstances provisions tend to serve the best interest of the child because \u201c[e]xperience has shown that with certain parents, as is the case here, the risk of recidivism is a very real concern. Therefore, when another child of that same person is adjudged a dependent child, it is not unreasonable to assume [that] reunification efforts will be unsuccessful.\u201d Id. \u00b6 16 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).\nFinally, Mother argues that the termination of parental rights is not \u201cabsolutely final\u201d when it is the subject of a pending appeal. Cf. State ex rel. Children, Youth & Families Dep\u2019t v. Brandy S., 2007-NMCA-135, \u00b6 15, 142 N.M. 705, 168 P.3d 1129 (recognizingthatajudgmentterminating parental rights constitutes a final judgment). She bases this argument on a perceived legislative intent that the aggravated circumstances finding is to be delayed pending appeal of an earlier termination. We are not persuaded. The Legislature could have limited the definition of aggravated circumstances to those situations in which an appellant has exhausted her rights to appeal, but it did not. See State v. Office of Pub. Defender ex rel. Muqqddin, 2012-NMSC-029, \u00b6 47, 285 P.3d 622 (recognizing that the Legislature is free to define statutory elements as it wishes). Moreover, considering that the primary consideration of the Children\u2019s Code is the best interest of the child, see \u00a7 32A-1-3(A), and that children\u2019s interests are served by \u201ctimely and permanent placement},]\u201d State ex rel. Children, Youth & Families Dep\u2019t v. Maria C., 2004-NMCA-083, \u00b6 45, 136 N.M. 53, 94 P.3d 796, we are not persuaded that the Legislature would choose to limit the district court\u2019s discretion with a mandate requiring the court to delay a finding of aggravated circumstances in all cases coming within the definition of Section 32A-4-2(C)(4) until an appeal of the prior termination was finally resolved in the appellate process. See id. (defining aggravated circumstances as those circumstances in which the parent has had parental rights over a sibling terminated involuntarily).\nThe Dissent\nRespectfully, the Dissent\u2019s approach is problematic.\nTo interpret \u201cterminated\u201d in Section 32A-4-2(C)(4) to mean that the issue has been resolved by the highest court to which the parent might seek relief eviscerates legislative intent. That intent is to avoid, where reasonable and appropriate, holding a child in Department-custody limbo where, with respect to the child\u2019s sibling, a parent has or parents have already been proven not amenable to Department reunification efforts or otherwise so unfit to parent as to inspire little hope that they will be able to provide appropriate care for the child at issue. See \u00a7\u00a7 32A-4-2(C)(4), -4-22(C)(2); Amy B., 2003-NMCA-017, \u00b6\u00b6 7, 16.\nThe interpretation results in an unintended mandate that, regardless of the circumstances, where the earlier termination adjudication is on appeal, the parent is guaranteed another go-round with Department reunification efforts for a period that could linger on over a span of a year or more while the child remains in limbo. Considering the high value of timely and permanent placement for children, see Maria C., 2004-NMCA-083, \u00b6 45, this interpretation runs afoul of the purpose of the Children\u2019s Code and does not have support in legislative intent. In addition, the Dissent\u2019s reliance on one dictionary definition of \u201cterminate\u201d leaves open unintended and perhaps unwarranted interpretations or consequences with respect not only to the meaning of \u201ctermination\u201d throughout the Children\u2019s Code, but also with respect to the concept of \u201cfinality\u201d in the appellate process.\nThe Dissent\u2019s view of the issue at hand as being whether \u201cMother should have been provided services,\u201d Dissent \u00b6 44, evades focus on the real issue \u2014 whether Mother\u2019s due process right was violated. An aggravated circumstances finding does not inevitably lead to deprivation of reasonable reunification efforts. The finding has the limited effect of permitting the district court to exercise its discretion whether to alleviate the Department\u2019s burden to make such efforts. See \u00a7 32A-4-22(C)(2). In considering the circumstances, the court can require the Department to engage in reasonable reunification efforts. The due process risk that Mother associates with an aggravated circumstances finding that is based on a potentially reversible prior termination is minimized by the court\u2019s discretionary function.\nFinally, the Dissent indicates that, under the majority\u2019s opinion here, in all cases in which reversal on appeal of an earlier termination relating to the sibling occurs, this Court will be forced to \u201cunring the \u2018aggravated circumstances\u2019 bell\u201d with adverse consequences. Dissent \u00b6 45. While we acknowledge that reversal of an earlier termination will result in further proceedings in the case involving the sibling as well as the case in which an aggravated circumstances finding was made, we do not agree that these possible circumstances dictate a ruling in this case that adopts Mother\u2019s position or the Dissent\u2019s view. That position and view are based on an assumption that is, in our view, unsupportable \u2014 that in every aggravated circumstances case, the district court will relieve the Department of its reasonable efforts obligation. Moreover, as we have expressed, we do not think that Mother\u2019s position and the Dissent\u2019s view comports with plain language used by the Legislature, with legislative intent, or with the goals of the Children\u2019s Code. If we are mistaken, we respectfully invite the Legislature to set the matter right.\nCONCLUSION\nWe affirm.\nIT IS SO ORDERED.\nJONATHAN B. SUTIN, Judge\nI CONCUR:\nRODERICK T. KENNEDY, Chief Judge\nTIMOTHY L. GARCIA, Judge, dissenting.\nThe abuse and neglect petition also pertained to Child\u2019s father who is not a party to this appeal.", "type": "majority", "author": "SUTIN, Judge." }, { "text": "GARCIA, Judge\n(dissenting).\nI respectfully dissent in this case. I would agree with Mother that the Legislature did not intend for aggravated circumstances under Section 32A-4-2(C)(4) to be applied in proceedings where the termination of parental rights over a sibling remained unresolved on appeal. As a result, it is not necessary to address the related due process issue raised in this appeal. Mother was entitled to assistance from the Department to remedy the causes and conditions that rendered Mother unable to properly care for Child and originally caused Child to come into the Department\u2019s custody.\nSection 32A-4-2(C)(4) defines the particular element of aggravated circumstances applied by the district court in this case as: \u201chad parental rights over a sibling of the child terminated involuntarily}.]\u201d (Emphasis added.) Mother argued that this definition requires completion and finality in the involuntary termination proceedings pending for Child\u2019s sibling, including any appeals. It is not disputed that the termination proceedings for Child\u2019s sibling were on appeal and remained unresolved throughout Child\u2019s district court proceedings in the present case. Because of the district court\u2019s decision to apply aggravated circumstances in this case, the Department did not provide Mother with assistance under Section 32A-4-22(C) to attempt reunification and to remedy the causes and conditions that rendered Mother unable to properly care for Child.\nThis Courtreviews issues of statutory interpretation and construction de novo. State ex rel. Children, Youth & Families Dep\u2019t v. Andree G., 2007-NMCA-156, \u00b6 17, 143 N.M. 195, 174 P.3d 531. The primary goal in statutory construction is \u201cto ascertain and give effect to the intent of the Legislature.\u201d Lobato v. N.M. Env\u2019t Dep\u2019t., 2012-NMSC-002, \u00b6 6, 267 P.3d 65 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). Both parties recognize that when construing a statutory section in reference to the statute as a whole, this Court will consider the several sections together so that all parts are given proper effect and placed in the appropriate context. Reule Sun Corp. v. Valles, 2010-NMSC-004, \u00b6 15, 147 N.M. 512, 226 P.3d 611. \u201cThe appellate courts examine the overall structure of the statute and its function in the comprehensive legislative scheme.\u201d State v. Smith, 2004-NMSC-032, \u00b6 10, 136 N.M. 372, 98 P.3d 1022. \u201c[W]hen a statute is ambiguous, we may consider the clear policy implications of its various constructions.\u201d Id. The parties recognize that the statutory construction for the language in Section 32A-4-2(C)(4) has not been previously interpreted by this Court.\nInitially, the appellate courts start this review \u201cby examining the words chosen by the Legislature and the plain meaning of those words.\u201d Reule Sun Corp., 2010-NMSC-004, \u00b6 15. Webster\u2019s Dictionary provides several primary and secondary definitions for the word \u201cterminate.\u201d Webster\u2019s Third New Int\u2019l Dictionary 2359 (1966). Primary definition includes: \u201ca: to bring to an ending or cessation in time sequence, or continuity : CLOSE . . . (benediction terminated the service).\u201d Id. A third primary definition states: \u201cc: to end formally and definitely . . . (his employment with the company was terminated.).\u201d Id. One of the secondary definitions states \u201c2: to set a limit to in space : serve as an ending, boundary, limit, dividing line.\u201d Id. Each of these definitions have a common principle to apply, they recognize a definitive ending or finality to an event or proceeding. As such, an unresolved proceeding, one that is not final and has not reached a definitive end, does not meet the accepted general definition of \u201cterminate\u201d or its past-tense equivalent \u201cterminated.\u201d In this case, the generally accepted definition of \u201cterminated\u201d would appear to support Mother\u2019s position \u2014 where a termination proceeding remains unresolved on appeal and has not yet ended formally or definitely, parental rights to a sibling have not been terminated under Section 32A-4-2(C)(4). However, our Supreme Court has recognized that the application of the plain meaning rule does not end an analysis. See State v. Rivera, 2004-NMSC-001, \u00b6 13, 134 N.M. 768, 82 P.3d 939 (recognizing that the appellate courts will not rely upon the literal meaning of a statute when such a construction would be absurd, unreasonable, or otherwise inappropriate).\nWe should be looking at the overall legislative scheme regarding the termination of parental rights and address whether the plain meaning of the word \u201cterminated\u201d in Section 32A-4-2(C)(4) contradicts the scheme established by the Legislature under the Abuse and Neglect Act (the Act), NMSA 1978, \u00a7\u00a7 32A-4-1 to -34 (1993, as amended through 2009). The majority views this analysis in light of the previous federally recognized problem \u2014 that abuse and neglect proceedings were subjecting children to long spells in foster care or returning them to abusive parents. Majority Opinion \u00b6 30. This analysis does not explain why the plain meaning interpretation of \u201cterminated\u201d under Section 32A-4-2(C)(4) would subject children to long spells in foster care or return them to abusive parents. In fact, there is no statutory basis under the Act to support the majority\u2019s premise that such an undesirable result would occur.\nAt issue is whether Mother should have been provided services from the Department to attempt reunification and remedy the causes and conditions that rendered Mother unable to properly care for Child. These are the same services and plans designed into the Act for all parents who have been adjudicated as abusive or neglectful that otherwise do not meet one of the two narrow statutory exceptions for expediting the process. See \u00a7 32A-4-22(C). Neither the Department nor the majority challenge the general statutory scheme under the Act. This general scheme attempts to efficiently reunify a child with its natural parents and remedy the causes and conditions that rendered a parent unable to properly care for a child in the first place. The Act was enacted in 1993, presumably to help remedy the historic problem where children spent long spells in foster care or were regularly returned to abusive parents. Mother\u2019s interpretation of \u201cterminated\u201d under Section 32A-4-2(C)(4) would not impose any new obligations or procedures upon the Department that are not presently in place. Implementing the standard reunification procedures in this case would not have subjected Child to some indefinite period of limbo or an extraordinary wait for final adjudication. Similar to any normal case, termination proceedings would timely ensue if Mother failed to comply with the Department\u2019s reasonable efforts to effectuate reunification.\nMother\u2019s proposed statutory interpretation is far better than the alternative proposed by the majority. Under the majority\u2019s analysis, this Courtwouldbe forced to unring the \u201caggravated circumstances\u201d bell each time a district court erred in its determination that the parental rights to a sibling were terminated but remained unresolved on appeal. Reversal by this Court of a prior termination would not only send the sibling\u2019s proceedings back for reconsideration, it would also send the \u201caggravated circumstances\u201d case for the subsequent sibling back for consideration by the district court for further Department efforts. When considering the best interests of a child and the potential length of time a child could be subjected to further custodial limbo and Department supervision, the majority\u2019s decision neither comports with the plain language used by the Legislature in Section 32A-4-2(C)(4) nor efficiently carries out the Act\u2019s comprehensive legislative scheme to avoid long periods of potential supervision and foster care.\nIn conclusion, I do not concur with the result reached by the majority in this case. As a result, I would reverse the district court\u2019s previous determination of aggravated circumstances under Section 32A-4-22(C)(2) and remand for further proceedings in an attempt to reunify the family in compliance with the Act.\nTIMOTHY L. GARCIA, Judge", "type": "dissent", "author": "GARCIA, Judge" } ], "attorneys": [ "Children, Youth & Families Department Oneida L\u2019Esperance, Chief Children\u2019s Court Attorney Rebecca J. Liggett, Children\u2019s Court Attorney Santa Fe, NM for Appellee", "Jane B. Yohalem Santa Fe, NM for Appellant", "Pittman Law Firm, P.C. Judy A. Pittman Roswell, NM Guardian ad Litem" ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "Certiorari Granted, May 24, 2013,\nNo. 34,127\nIN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO\nOpinion Number: 2013-NMCA-061\nFiling Date: March 26, 2013\nDocket No. 31,869\nSTATE OF NEW MEXICO ex rel. CHILDREN, YOUTH AND FAMILIES DEPARTMENT, Petitioner-Appellee, v. RAQUEL M., Respondent-Appellant, IN THE MATTER OF ANGEL N., n/k/a CISCO N., Child.\nChildren, Youth & Families Department Oneida L\u2019Esperance, Chief Children\u2019s Court Attorney Rebecca J. Liggett, Children\u2019s Court Attorney Santa Fe, NM for Appellee\nJane B. Yohalem Santa Fe, NM for Appellant\nPittman Law Firm, P.C. Judy A. Pittman Roswell, NM Guardian ad Litem" }, "file_name": "0138-01", "first_page_order": 154, "last_page_order": 166 }