{ "id": 4241731, "name": "IN THE MATTER OF MAHDJID B. and ALIAH B., children, STATE OF NEW MEXICO, ex rel. CHILDREN, YOUTH AND FAMILIES DEPARTMENT, Petitioner-Petitioner, v. DJAMILA B., Respondent-Respondent, and ABDEL M. B., Intervenor", "name_abbreviation": "State ex rel. Chidren, Youth & Families Department v. Djamila B.", "decision_date": "2014-12-15", "docket_number": "Docket No. 34,583", "first_page": "209", "last_page": "222", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "2015-NMSC-003" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "N.M. Ct. App.", "id": 9025, "name": "Court of Appeals of New Mexico" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 52, "name_long": "New Mexico", "name": "N.M." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "2006-NMSC-019", "category": "reporters:neutral", "reporter": "NMSC", "case_ids": [ 2544297 ], "weight": 3, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "\u00b6 10" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nm/139/0459-01" ] }, { "cite": "104 N.M. 163", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.M.", "case_ids": [ 1595003 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1989, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nm/104/0163-01" ] }, { "cite": "1986-NMCA-034", "category": "reporters:neutral", "reporter": "NMCA", "year": 1989, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "\u00b6 17" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "2004-NMCA-005", "category": "reporters:neutral", "reporter": "NMCA", "case_ids": [ 77115 ], "weight": 3, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "\u00b6 9" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nm/134/0783-01" ] }, { "cite": "2004-NMSC-032", "category": "reporters:neutral", "reporter": "NMSC", "case_ids": [ 1224669 ], "weight": 5, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "\u00b6 10" }, { "page": "\u00b6 10" }, { "page": "\u00b6 10" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nm/136/0372-01" ] }, { "cite": "335 P.3d 746", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "P.3d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "2014-NMSC-034", "category": "reporters:neutral", "reporter": "NMSC", "case_ids": [ 4240158 ], "pin_cites": [ { "page": "\u00b6 34" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nm-app/6/0608-01" ] }, { "cite": "2007-NMCA-070", "category": "reporters:neutral", "reporter": "NMCA", "case_ids": [ 3669122 ], "weight": 4, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "\u00b6 34" }, { "parenthetical": "internal quotation marks and citations omitted" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nm/141/0692-01" ] }, { "cite": "2004-NMSC-001", "category": "reporters:neutral", "reporter": "NMSC", "case_ids": [ 77119 ], "weight": 4, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "\u00b6 13" }, { "page": "\u00b6 13" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nm/134/0768-01" ] }, { "cite": "2010-NMSC-029", "category": "reporters:neutral", "reporter": "NMSC", "case_ids": [ 4247388 ], "weight": 3, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "\u00b6 8" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nm/148/0436-01" ] }, { "cite": "280 P.3d 909", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "P.3d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "2012-NMSC-017", "category": "reporters:neutral", "reporter": "NMSC", "case_ids": [ 4190395 ], "weight": 2, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "\u00b6 13" }, { "page": "\u00b6\u00b6 1, 29" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nm-app/2/0019-01" ] }, { "cite": "316 P.3d 865", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "P.3d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "2014-NMSC-003", "category": "reporters:neutral", "reporter": "NMSC", "case_ids": [ 4078207 ], "pin_cites": [ { "page": "\u00b6 20" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nm-app/5/0320-01" ] }, { "cite": "2009-NMCA-007", "category": "reporters:neutral", "reporter": "NMCA", "case_ids": [ 4242132 ], "weight": 4, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "\u00b6 4" }, { "page": "\u00b6\u00b6 2, 12" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nm/145/0500-01" ] }, { "cite": "2004-NMCA-083", "category": "reporters:neutral", "reporter": "NMCA", "case_ids": [ 1224600 ], "weight": 6, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "\u00b6 18" }, { "page": "\u00b6\u00b6 18-22" }, { "page": "\u00b6 25" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nm/136/0053-01" ] }, { "cite": "320 P.3d 1", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "P.3d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "2014-NMSC-007", "category": "reporters:neutral", "reporter": "NMSC", "case_ids": [ 4077464 ], "pin_cites": [ { "page": "\u00b6 40" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nm-app/5/0529-01" ] }, { "cite": "2014-NMCERT-004", "category": "reporters:neutral", "reporter": "NMCERT", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "322 P.3d 444", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "P.3d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "2014-NMCA-045", "category": "reporters:neutral", "reporter": "NMCA", "case_ids": [ 4077657 ], "weight": 3, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "\u00b6 20" }, { "page": "\u00b6 20" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nm-app/5/0708-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 1252, "char_count": 43253, "ocr_confidence": 0.77, "pagerank": { "raw": 9.091697224964983e-08, "percentile": 0.5057221482796873 }, "sha256": "e6f284804cd355f8384ce088dc08a5b8acc39e07ca40eb21dbe815edac10f616", "simhash": "1:bb2c773eff7421e9", "word_count": 6775 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T17:10:55.229683+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [ "EDWARD L. CH\u00c1VEZ, Justice", "BARBARA J. VIGIL, Chief Justice", "PETRA JIMENEZ MAES, Justice", "RICHARD C. BOSSON, Justice", "CHARLES W. DANIELS, Justice" ], "parties": [ "IN THE MATTER OF MAHDJID B. and ALIAH B., children, STATE OF NEW MEXICO, ex rel. CHILDREN, YOUTH AND FAMILIES DEPARTMENT, Petitioner-Petitioner, v. DJAMILA B., Respondent-Respondent, and ABDEL M. B., Intervenor." ], "opinions": [ { "text": "OPINION\nCH\u00c1VEZ, Justice.\nRespondent Djamila B. (Guardian) was appointed by a family court as kinship guardian to Mahdjid and Aliah (Children). Petitioner Children, Youth and Families Department (CYFD) brought abuse and neglect proceedings in children\u2019s court against Guardian and Children\u2019s biological parents pursuant to the Abuse and Neglect Act (ANA), NMSA 1978, \u00a7\u00a7 32A-4-1 to -34 (1993, as amended through 2009). Prior to seeking adoption for Children, CYFD filed a motion to dismiss Guardian from the abuse and neglect proceedings, arguing that Guardian was not an appropriate party to a termination of parental rights hearing because Guardian is not Children\u2019s biological parent. The children\u2019s court granted CYFD\u2019s motion to dismiss Guardian without revoking the kinship guardianship in accordance with the revocation procedures set forth under the Kinship Guardianship Act (KGA), NMSA 1978, \u00a7\u00a7 40-10B-1 to -15 (2001). The Court of Appeals reversed the children\u2019s court ruling, holding that Guardian was a necessary and indispensable party to the abuse and neglect proceedings. State ex rel. Children, Youth & Families Dep't v. Djamila B. (In re Mahdjid B.), 2014-NMCA-045, \u00b6 20, 322 P.3d 444. This Court granted certiorari review. State v. Djamila B., 2014-NMCERT-004.\nWe affirm the Court of Appeals on different grounds. We hold that while kinship guardians are not necessary and indispensable parties to abuse and neglect proceedings, kinship guardiahs, nonetheless, have a statutory right to a revocation hearing in accordance with the revocation procedures of the KGA prior to being dismissed from abuse and neglect proceedings. Such procedures require an evidentiary hearing and compliance with the Rules of Evidence. There is no need for separate filings and hearings in the original family court that appointed the kinship guardian because the children\u2019s court presiding over the abuse and neglect proceeding has jurisdiction over the kinship guardian and the subject matter of the case to make decisions that are ultimately in the best interests of the children.\nChildren\u2019s biological father (Father) intervened in this appeal after this Court granted certiorari. Father argues that his due process rights were violated because he was not given a fair opportunity to voice concerns in the dismissal of Guardian from the abuse and neglect proceedings. Although we briefly discuss Father\u2019s claim, we do not decide this issue because it is unnecessary in view of our holding on the primary issue. If CYFD continues to believe that a revocation hearing is warranted, Father will have the opportunity to participate in Guardian\u2019s revocation hearing.\nI. BACKGROUND\nGuardian, who is Children\u2019s paternal aunt, became Children\u2019s kinship guardian pursuant to the KGA in May 2007 through a separate proceeding in family court. Children lived with Guardian from that time until June 2010, when Children were placed in CYFD\u2019s custody.\nIn June 2010, CYFD filed, an abuse and neglect petition in children\u2019s court against Children\u2019s mother, Father, and Guardian pursuant to the ANA. On June 30, 2010, the children\u2019s court issued a notice of custody hearing set for July 8, 2010. The children\u2019s court ordered a treatment plan requiring Guardian to submit to psychological and/or psychiatric evaluations, domestic violence and substance abuse assessments, and random drug testing as directed by CYFD. CYFD\u2019s initial assessment plan, which was attached to the children\u2019s court order, proposed permanent reunification of Children with Guardian by July 2, 2010. Reunification with Guardian remained the goal of the proceedings in orders following the first judicial review on November 2, 2010, the second judicial review on February 3, 2011,and two permanency hearings on May 10, 2011 and August 9, 2011. On August 9, 2011, the children\u2019s court adopted CYFD\u2019s proposed reunification plan pursuant to Sections 32A-4-24 and 32A-4-25.1, and Children were scheduled for a trial home visit to transition back to living with Guardian beginning on August 12, 2011 as Guardian continued with her treatment plan.\nOn February 16, 2012, CYFD filed a motion to dismiss Guardian from the abuse and neglect proceedings. At a permanency hearing onFebruary 28,2012, CYFD changed its permanency plan for Children from reunification with Guardian to adoption. CYFD\u2019s motion to dismiss also announced its intent to pursue termination of the parental rights of Children\u2019s biological parents. CYFD argued, in part, that it was \u201cfiling a motion for Termination of Parental Rights and [Guardian] does not have parental rights to terminate and will not benefit from following a treatment plan and whether she follows a treatment plan does not affect final permanency for the children.\u201d Furthermore, without reference to any external authority that would support the requirement of \u201c[p]er CYFD policy,\u201d CYFD asserted that Guardian was not eligible either to adopt Children or to be a foster placement for them. In an order filed on April 17, 2012, the children\u2019s court adopted CYFD\u2019s proposed changes to the permanency plan. Guardian timely opposed CYFD\u2019s motion to dismiss her from the case.\nOnMay8,2012, the children \u2019 s court held an evidentiary hearing on CYFD\u2019s motion to dismiss. Prior to commencing the hearing, the children\u2019s court addressed preliminary matters with the parties and ruled that \u201c[t]he formal rules of evidence [would] not apply\u201d during the hearing. The children\u2019s court explained that the formal rules of evidence do not apply during abuse and neglect proceedings except for adjudicatory or termination of parental rights hearings. The children\u2019s court also advised the parties that it would instead \u201cweigh[] and balancef]\u201d all of the evidence presented to \u201csee whether the motion [to dismiss] should or should not be granted.\u201d\nAfter hearing all of the evidence presented during the May 8,2012 hearing, the children\u2019s court granted CYFD\u2019s motion to dismiss. The children\u2019s court briefly addressed the issue of the ongoing kinship guardianship, but it ultimately ruled that the children\u2019s court lacked jurisdiction to revoke a kinship guardianship appointed by a family court. The children\u2019s court also ruled that a kinship guardianship is \u201calways a temporary status,\u201d and that Guardian was not Children\u2019s legal parent. Specifically, the children\u2019s court expressed its opinion that the appointment of a kinship guardian does not divest the rights of the biological parents, and thus it cannot vest Guardian with full parental rights. The children\u2019s court ultimately ruled that CYFD had custody of Children, and because Guardian was not a legal parent, CYFD had complete discretion regarding Children\u2019s placement.\nOn July 2, 2012, the children\u2019s court granted CYFD\u2019s motion to dismiss Guardian in an order devoid of findings of fact or conclusions of law. Guardian timely appealed the children\u2019s court order dismissing her from the abuse and neglect proceedings. In her docketing statement, Guardian argued, inter alia, that dismissal from the abuse and neglect proceedings was improper until her kinship guardianship rights were revoked pursuant to the KGA.\nThe Court of Appeals held that \u201c[t]he [children\u2019s] court erred in dismissing Guardian from the proceedings while she remained the kinship guardian of Children because she was a necessary and indispensable party to the pending case.\u201d Djamila B., 2014-NMCA-045, \u00b6 20. The Court of Appeals reversed the children\u2019s court order dismissing Guardian and \u201call subsequent orders entered in the case in proceedings that took place without notice first having been provided to Guardian\u201d and remanded the case \u201cto the district court to reinstate Guardian as a party respondent in the matter and for further proceedings in accordance with law.\u201d Id.\nCYFD appealed to this Court, and we granted certiorari review. 2014-NM CERT-004. Father intervened in this appeal after this Court granted certiorari review.\nII. DISCUSSION\nA. Kinship guardians shall not be involuntarily dismissed from abuse and neglect proceedings unless the kinship guardianship is first properly revoked in accordance with the revocation procedures of the KGA and the New Mexico Rules of Evidence\nCYFD argues that the Court of Appeals erred in concluding that Guardian was a necessary and indispensable party to the abuse and neglect proceedings, and therefore she could not be dismissed from the abuse and neglect proceedings until her kinship guardianship was first properly revoked pursuant to the KGA. Resolving this issue requires a survey of the interrelationship between two groups of statutes, the ANA and the KGA. \u201cStatutory interpretation is a question of law, which we review de novo.\u201d Bank of New York v. Romero, 2014-NMSC-007, \u00b6 40, 320 P.3d 1.\n1. The Legislature enacted the ANA and the KGA with the intent to preserve family unity\na. The ANA\nThe New Mexico Children\u2019s Code, NMSA 1978, \u00a7\u00a7 32A-1-1 to -24-5 (1993, as amended through 2009), incorporates the ANA and qualifies ANA policy and procedure. The central purpose of the Children\u2019s Code is to protect the health and safety of children covered by its provisions while \u201cpreserving] the unity of the family whenever possible.\u201d Section 32A-1-3(A). To achieve these goals, the ANA \u201cdetails the procedures and timelines the State must follow when it invokes the jurisdiction of the district court to take physical and/or legal custody of a child whom it alleges to be abandoned, neglected, or abused.\u201d State ex rel. Children, Youth & Families Dep't v. Maria C. (In re Rudolfo L.), 2004-NMCA-083, \u00b6 18, 136 N.M. 53, 94 P.3d 796. The ANA procedures serve the express purpose of the Children\u2019s Code by \u201cassurfing] that \u2018the parties [receive] a fair hearing and their constitutional and other legal rights are recognized and enforced.\u2019 \u201d Id. \u00b6 23 (second alteration in original) (quoting Section 32A-1-3(B)). Accordingly, the ANA guarantees the child\u2019s parent, guardian, or custodian notice and participation in proceedings prior to the termination of parental rights. Sections 32A-18 to -20, -22, -25, -25.1.\nAn abuse and neglect case begins when CYFD files a petition alleging abuse or neglect. See \u00a7 32A-4-7(D) (\u201cReasonable efforts shall be made to prevent or eliminate the need for removing the child from the child\u2019s home, with the paramount concern being the child\u2019s health and safety. In all cases when a child is taken into custody, the child shall be released to the child\u2019s parent, guardian or custodian, unless [CYFD] flies a petition within two days from the date that the child was taken into custody.\u201d (emphasis added)). Upon the filing of a petition, \u201ccounsel shall be appointed for the parent, guardian or custodian of the child.\u201d Section 32A-4-10(B). Within ten days of filing, the children\u2019s court holds a custody hearing to determine whether the child should remain in CYFD custody or whether CYFD should return legal custody to the child\u2019s parent, guardian, or custodian pending an adjudicatory hearing. Section 32A-4-18(A), (C). The children\u2019s court shall return legal custody to the child\u2019s parent, guardian, or custodian unless it finds probable cause for abuse or neglect. Section 32A-4-18(C).\nAn adjudicatory hearing is held within sixty days from when CYFD serves the abuse and neglect petition. Section 32A-4-19(A). The adjudicatory hearing focuses on whether the child was abused or neglected as defined under the ANA. Sections 32A-4-2, - 20(H). The children\u2019s court determines whether the child was abused or neglected based on a valid admission from the parties or on clear and convincing evidence. Id. If the children\u2019s court finds abuse or neglect, the court may address disposition immediately or hold a dispositional hearing within thirty days after the adjudicatory hearing where it hears evidence and determines the best interests of the child as to the child\u2019s custody. Section 32A-4-20(H), -22(A). Additionally, if the children\u2019s court finds the child to be abused and/or neglected, \u201cthe court shall also order [CYFD] to implement and the child\u2019s parent, guardian or custodian to cooperate with any treatment plan approved by the court.\u201d Section 32A-4-22(C) (emphasis added). Within sixty days of disposition, the children\u2019s court holds an initial judicial review hearing to determine the effectiveness of the treatment plan. Section 32A-4-25(A).\nWithin six months of the initial judicial review of the dispositional order, the children\u2019s court holds an initial permanency hearing to determine whether the child should be returned home to the child\u2019s parent, guardian, or custodian or remain in CYFD\u2019s custody. Section 32A-4-25.1(A), (B).\nAt the conclusion of the permanency hearing, the [children\u2019s] court shall order one of the following permanency plans for the child:\n(1) reunification;\n(2) placement for adoption after the parents\u2019 rights have been relinquished or terminated or after a motion has been filed to terminate parental rights;\n(3) placement with a person who will be the child\u2019s permanent guardian;\n(4) placement in the legal custody of [CYFD] with the child placed in the home of a fit and willing relative; or\n(5) placement in the legal custody of [CYFD] under a planned permanent living arrangement, provided that there is substantial evidence that none of the above plans is appropriate for the child.\nSection 32A-4-25.1(B).\n\u201cIf the court adopts a permanency plan of reunification, the court shall adopt a plan for transitioning the child home and schedule a permanency review hearing within three months\u201d to ensure that the child\u2019s parent, guardian, or custodian has made good progress. Section 32A-4-25.1(C). \u201cAt the permanency review hearing, all parties and the child\u2019s guardian ad litem or attorney shall have the opportunity to present evidence and cross-examine witnesses.\u201d Section 32A-4-25.1(E). Notably, the Rules of Evidence do not apply in permanency review hearings. Section 32A-4-25.1(I); see also Rule 11-1101(D) NMRA (\u201cThese rules \u2014 except for those on privilege \u2014 do not apply to the following: . . . (3)(f) dispositional hearings in children\u2019s court proceedings, and (g) the following abuse and neglect proceedings: (i) issuing an ex parte custody order; (ii) custody hearings; (iii) permanency hearings; and (iv) judicial review proceedings.\u201d). If the child is returned home, the case can either be dismissed or the children\u2019s court can order continuing supervision. Section 32A-4-25.1(E)(2)-(3). At the permanency review hearing, if the children\u2019s court finds that reunification is stillnotpossible, itwill initiate proceedings for a permanent guardianship or termination of parental rights (adoption). See \u00a7 32A-4-31 (permanent guardianship); \u00a7 32A-4-28 (termination of parental rights).\nTerminating parents\u2019 right to reunite with their child, thereby extinguishing the family unit, is a mechanism of last resort under the ANA. The ANA provides that a children\u2019s court shall terminate parental rights only when:\n(1) there has been an abandonment of the child by [the child\u2019s] parents;\n(2) the child has been a neglected or abused child as defined in the [ANA] and the court finds that the conditions and causes of the neglect and abuse are unlikely to change in the foreseeable future despite reasonable efforts by [CYFD] or other appropriate agency to assist the parent in adjusting the conditions that render the parent' unable to properly care for the child. ... [; or]\n(3) the child has been placed in the care of others, including care by other relatives, either by a court order or otherwise and the following conditions exist....\nSection 32A-4-28(B). CYFD or any of the other parties to the proceeding may file a motion to terminate parental rights at any time during abuse and neglect proceedings. Section 32A-4-29(A). However, \u201c[t]he grounds for any attempted termination shall be proved by clear and convincing evidence.\u201d Section 32A-4-29(I). Unlike the ANA provisions for initial permanency reviews, adjudicatory hearings, or dispositional hearings prior to termination, the procedures for the termination of parental rights fail to mention guardians.\nIn summary, the ANA limits the procedures and time frame under which parents or custodians and, by extension, guardians can rehabilitate themselves and reunite with their children in line with the overall purpose of the Children\u2019s Code. Maria C., 2004-NMCA-083, \u00b6\u00b6 18-22. While the ANA serves to protect children in New Mexico against abuse and neglect, preserving the family relationship between the child and the child\u2019s parent, guardian, or custodian remains the ultimate goal of ANA proceedings until the children\u2019s court finds that reunification is simply not possible.\nb. The KGA\nSimilar to the overall purpose of the Children\u2019s Code, the KGA recognizes New Mexico policy that the \u201cinterests of children are best served when they are raised by their parents.\u201d Section 40-10B-2(A). However, when neither parent is able or willing to raise their child, the Legislature enacted the KGA in 2001 to establish procedures whereby \u201ca child should be raised by family members or kinship caregivers.\u201d Id. The KGA applies to cases where a child has been left by the child\u2019s parents \u201cin the care of another for ninety consecutive days [or more] and that arrangement leaves the child . . . without appropriate care, guidance or supervision.\u201d Section 40-10B-2(B).\nUltimately, \u201c[t]he KGA establishes procedures and substantive standards for effecting legal relationships between children and adult caretakers who have assumed the day-to-day responsibilities of caring for a child.\u201d Debbie L. v. Galadriel L. (In re Guardianship of Victoria R.), 2009-NMCA-007, \u00b6 4, 145 N.M. 500, 201 P.3d 169; see also \u00a7 40-10B-2(C) (\u201cThe purposes of the Kinship Guardianship Act are to: (1) establish procedures to effect a legal relationship between a child and a kinship caregiver when the child is not residing with either parent; and (2) provide a child with a stable and consistent relationship with a kinship caregiver that will enable the child to develop physically, mentally and emotionally to the maximum extent possible when the child's parents are not willing or able to do so.\u201d). Kinship guardians possess all of \u201cthe legal rights and duties of a parent except the right to consent to adoption of the child and except for parental rights and duties that the court orders retained by a parent.\u201d Section 40-10B-13(A); see also \u00a7 40-10B-3(A) (\u201cAs used in the Kinship Guardianship Act[,] . . . \u2018caregiver\u2019 means an adult, who is not a parent of a child, with whom a child resides and who provides that child with the care, maintenance and supervision consistent with the duties and responsibilities of a parent of the child.\u201d).\nA petition for kinship guardianship maybe filed by a \u201ckinship caregiver,\u201d Section 40-10B-5(A)(l), a designation that includes three categories of caregivers: (1) an adult relative, godparent, or member of the child\u2019s tribe or clan, Section 40-10B-3(A), (C); (2) \u201can adult with whom the child has a significant bond,\u201d id.\\ and (3) a guardian appointed directly by a court under the KGA, Sections 40-10B-7(A), -8(A). \u201cUpon hearing, if the court finds that a qualified person seeks appointment, the venue is proper, the required notices have been given, the requirements . .. of this section have been proved and the best interests of the minor will be served by the requested appointment, it shall make the appointment.\u201d Section 40-10B-8(A). A kinship guardian \u201chas authority to make all decisions regarding visitation between a parent and the child\u201d unless otherwise ordered by the court. Section 40-10B-13(B). \u2022\nA motion to revoke the kinship guardianship may be filed by any person. Section 40-10B-12(A). Because of the rights and interests involved, our Rules of Evidence apply in these kinship guardianship revocation proceedings. See Rule 11-101 NMRA (governing the scope of our Rules of Evidence); Rule 11-102 NMRA (\u201cThese rules should be construed so as to administer every proceeding fairly . . . and promote the development of evidence law, to the end of ascertaining the truth and securing a just determination.\u201d);Rule 11-1101 (governing the applicability of our Rules of Evidence and listing the specific exceptions to their applicability; notably, KGA revocation hearings are not a listed exception). To revoke the kinship guardianship, the moving party has the burden of showing that \u201ca preponderance of the evidence proves a change in circumstances and the revocation is in the best interests of the child.\u201d Section 40-10B-12(B). A preponderance of the evidence makes it easier to return a child to his or her biological parents when the child\u2019s biological parents are able and willing to care for the child. Through this lower burden of proof, the KGA provides the proper statutory mechanism for preserving the unity of family for New Mexico children without severely disrupting the important role of a parent for the child, regardless of whether that parental role is fulfilled by the child\u2019s biological parent or a kinship guardian. See \u00a7 40-10B-2(A) (\u201c[Wjhenever possible, a child should be raised by family members or kinship caregivers.\u201d).\n2. The Legislature intended that kinship guardians participate in all abuse and neglect proceedings until the kinship guardianship is properly revoked in accordance with the revocation procedures of the KGA\nCYFD argues that the omission of guardians from the statutory provisions of the ANA concerning parental rights termination procedures precludes Guardian\u2019s ability to further participate in the abuse and neglect proceedings because Guardian lacks any parental rights to divest. However, the omission of the term \u201cguardian\u201d from the parental rights termination procedures in the ANA does not determine whether Guardian has a statutory right to participate in all abuse and neglect proceedings until her kinship guardianship is properly revoked. The Legislature enacted the Children\u2019s Code and the KGA to create mechanisms for elevating guardians to the status of a child\u2019s biological parents when the biological parents are unwilling or unable to properly care for the child. These statutory mechanisms support the overall purpose ofthe Children\u2019s Code and the KGA concerning family unity. The KGA bestows parental rights on kinship guardians, which must be properly revoked prior to involuntarily dismissing kinship guardians from abuse and neglect proceedings or before appointing a permanent guardian other than the kinship guardian. See \u00a7\u00a7 32A-4-25.1(B)(3), -31, -32. We hold that the Legislature intended that kinship guardians participate in all abuse and neglect proceedings until the kinship guardianship is first properly revoked in accordance with the revocation procedures of the KGA and our Rules of Evidence.\n\u201cOur principal goal in interpreting statutes is to give effect to the Legislature\u2019s intent.\u201d Griego v. Oliver, 2014-NMSC-003, \u00b6 20, 316 P.3d 865. In interpreting statutory language, \u201c[w]e look first to the plain language of the statute.\u201d Freedom C. v. Brian D. (In re Guardianship of Patrick D.), 2012-NMSC-017, \u00b6 13, 280 P.3d 909 (alteration in original) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). However, \u201cwe look not only to the language used in the statute, but also to the purpose to be achieved and the wrong to be remedied.\u201d Jolley v. Associated Elec. & Gas Ins. Servs. Ltd., 2010-NMSC-029, \u00b6 8, 148 N.M. 436, 237 P.3d 738 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). We analyze a \u201cstatute\u2019s function within a. comprehensive legislative scheme.\u201d State v. Rivera, 2004-NMSC-001, \u00b6 13, 134 N.M. 768, 82 P.3d 939.\nThe ANA, \u201cas part of the Children\u2019s Code,... must be read as an entirety and each section interpreted so as to correlate as faultlessly as possible with all other sections.\u201d State ex rel. Children, Youth & Families Dep\u2019t v. Benjamin O. (In re Lakota C.), 2007-NMCA-070, \u00b6 34, 141 N.M. 692, 160 P.3d 601 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). \u201cAdditionally, the provisions of the Children\u2019s Code should be interpreted in such a manner as to effectuate its purposes, which include preservation of family unity when possible.\u201d Id. (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). \u201c Tn other words, a statutory subsection may not be considered in a vacuum, but must be considered in reference to the statute as a whole and in reference to statutes dealing with the same general subject matter.\u2019 \u201d State ex rel. Children, Youth & Families Dep\u2019t v. Maurice H. (In re Grace H.), 2014-NMSC-034, \u00b6 34, 335 P.3d 746 (quoting Rivera, 2004-NMSC-001, \u00b6 13 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted)). \u201cWhenever possible, we must read different legislative enactments as harmonious instead of as contradicting one another.\u201d Smith, 2004-NMSC-032, \u00b6 10 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).\nThe harmonious common purpose of the ANA and the KGA is to preserve family unity whenever possible. In line with this purpose, the ANA and the KGA both elevate guardians to a level of responsibility synonymous with that of parents. The KGA, enacted to provide a mechanism for family members to legally step into the shoes of parents when a child\u2019s biological parents are unable or unwilling to care for that child, grants kinship guardians the same legal rights and responsibilities that a biological parent would have.\nThis Court rejects \u201ca formalistic and mechanical statutory construction when the results would be absurd, unreasonable, or contrary to the spirit of the statute.\u201d Smith, 2004-NMSC-032, \u00b6 10. Each provision defining the harms and neglect within the ANA includes the term \u201cguardian\u201d in addition to the terms \u201cparent\u201d and \u201ccustodian\u201d as persons who are responsible for those harms. Section 32A-4-2(B)(l)-(5), (E)(l)-(4). Additionally, the term \u201cguardian\u201d appears in numerous other provisions of the ANA. See, e.g., \u00a7 32A-4-2 (defining abuse and neglect by parties including guardians); \u00a7 32A-4-6(A) (describing conditions under which a child may be taken into custody, including when guardians commit certain acts); \u00a7 32A-4-7(A) (listing guardians as persons to whom CYFD may release children in CYFD\u2019s custody); \u00a7 32A-4-22(C) (requiring guardians to comply with court-ordered treatment plans implemented by CYFD); \u00a7 32A-4-25(H)(7) (empowering a court during periodic judicial review hearings to issue an order to show cause or to order a hearing on the merits of a motion to terminate parental rights if a parent or guardian has not followed their treatment plan).\nPursuant to the ANA, a kinship guardian can be accused of abuse and neglect, \u00a7 32A-4-6(A), summoned to participate in all abuse and neglect proceedings, \u00a7\u00a7 32A-4-10(B), -18(B)-(C), and ordered to follow a court-ordered permanency and treatment plan implemented by CYFD, \u00a7 32A-4-22(C). Prior to the termination hearing, CYFD and the children\u2019s court treated both Guardian and Children\u2019s biological parents alike. Guardian was the only party who made consistent efforts to comply with her court-ordered treatment plan. Most importantly, Guardian was Children\u2019s only parental figure for nearly three years between May 2007 and June 2010. Nonetheless, CYFD improperly maintains a rigid textual interpretation of the ANA precluding Guardian from further-participating in the abuse and neglect proceedings. Precluding kinship guardians from participating in abuse and neglect termination of parental rights hearings, while ordering them to comply with CYFD\u2019s permanency plans for reunification with children, leads to a result that is either \u201cabsurd, unreasonable, or contrary to the spirit of the statutefs].\u201d State v. Smith, 2004-NMSC-032, \u00b6 10, 136 N.M. 372, 98 P.3d 1022; see also Maria C., 2004-NMCA-083, \u00b6 25 (recognizing that the process for terminating parental rights is a \u201ccontinuum of proceedings\u201d beginning with the filing of the neglect or abuse petition).\nWe recognize that the Legislature did not expressly include the term \u201cguardian\u201d within the ANA provisions concerning the termination of parental rights. However, the Legislature\u2019s omission is not dispositive of whether kinship guardians have a statutory right to a revocation hearing prior to being involuntarily dismissed from abuse and neglect proceedings. \u201cThe legislature is presumed to be aware of existing statutes when it enacts legislation.\u201d State v. Fairbanks, 2004-NMCA-005, \u00b6 9, 134 N.M. 783, 82 P.3d 954. Accordingly, the Legislature is presumed to have been aware of both the ANA and the KGA. Because the Legislature intended that the ANA and the KGA work in harmony, the revocation procedures of the KGA naturally complement the ANA provisions concerning termination of parental rights. By enacting compatible legislation, the Legislature intended that courts presiding over abuse and neglect proceedings first hold a revocation hearing in accordance with KGA revocation procedures and our Rules of Evidence prior to involuntarily dismissing a kinship guardian from abuse and neglect proceedings.\nThis interpretation allows children\u2019s courts to ensure that the ANA is applied in a manner which adheres to the spirit of the Children\u2019s Code and the KGA. Although the ANA fails to explicitly include the term \u201cguardian\u201d within its statutory procedures for terminating parental rights, kinship guardians nonetheless possess rights equivalent to the parental rights being terminated by the children\u2019s court through abuse and neglect proceedings.\nCases that come under the ANA and the KGA often involve unconventional family structures and unconventional facts. See In re Guardianship of Patrick D., 2012-NMSC-017, \u00b6\u00b6 1, 29 (court found both parents unfit to raise child; maternal grandparents granted guardianship); In re Guardianship of Victoria R., 2009-NMCA-007, \u00b6\u00b6 2, 12 (affirming the district court\u2019s award of guardianship to adult caregivers with whom the child formed a bond where father had limited contact with child, mother had emotional problems, and mother informally left the eighteen-month-old child with the adult caregivers, who raised the child for several years). The ANA and the KGA need to work in harmony to preserve family unity when children have unconventional family structures involving both biological parents and kinship guardians. It would undermine the spirit of both acts to allow a children\u2019s court to involuntarily dismiss kinship guardians from abuse and neglect proceedings merely based on a strict interpretation of the ANA focused on the omission of \u201cguardian\u201d from the ANA provisions concerning termination of parental rights. Such a result would be antithetical to the Legislature\u2019s intent in enacting both statutes.\nConsistent with legislative intent, we hold that kinship guardianships must be revoked in accordance with the revocation procedures of the KGA and our Rules of Evidence before involuntarily dismissing a kinship guardian from abuse and neglect proceedings. The KGA requires the party moving for revocation to prove that \u201ca preponderance of the evidence proves a change in circumstances and the revocation is in the best interests of the child.\u201d Section 40-10B-12(B). If the court finds that the burden of proof has been met, the court shall grant the motion to revoke the guardianship and dismiss the kinship guardian from the abuse and neglect proceedings. Section 40-10B-12. The court shall also \u201c(1) adopt a transition plan proposed by a party or the guardian ad litem; (2) propose and adopt its own transition plan; or (3) order the parties to develop a transition plan by consensus if they will agree to do so.\u201d Section 40-10B-12(B).\n3. Family courts that appoint kinship guardians have concurrent jurisdiction with the children\u2019s court in overseeing a kinship guardianship revocation hearing during abuse and neglect proceedings\nThe KGA provides that \u201c[t]he court appointing a guardian pursuant to the [KGA] retains continuing jurisdiction of the matter.\u201d Section 40-10B-14. The children\u2019s court in this case interpreted continuing jurisdiction to mean exclusive jurisdiction. Accordingly, the children\u2019s court ruled that it lacked jurisdiction to revoke the kinship guardianship pursuant to Section 40-1 OB-14 of the KGA. We disagree. Such an interpretation is contrary to the plain text of the KGA and contrary to the functional purposes of the revocation provisions of both the KGA and abuse and neglect proceedings.\nFirst, although the KGA provides for \u201ccontinuing\u201d jurisdiction, it does not grant exclusive jurisdiction to district courts that appoint kinship guardianships. See \u00a7 40-1 OB-4 (\u201cThe district court has jurisdiction of proceedings pursuant to the [KGA]. . . . Proceedings pursuant to the [KGA] shall be in the district court of the county of the child\u2019s legal residence or the county where the child resides, if different from the county of legal residence.\u201d); see also \u00a7 40-10B-14 (\u201cThe court appointing a guardian pursuant to the [KGA] retains continuing jurisdiction ofthe matter.\u201d). The continuing jurisdiction provision of the KGA differs from our child custody statutes, which explicitly necessitate \u201cexclusive, continuing jurisdiction.\u2019\u2019NMSA 1978, \u00a7 40-10A-202 (2001) (emphasis added); see also Elder v. Park, 1986-NMCA-034, \u00b6 17, 104 N.M. 163, 717 P.2d 1132 (recognizing that the primary purpose of the New Mexico Child Custody Jurisdiction Act, NMSA 1978, \u00a7\u00a7 40-10-1 to -24 (1981, as amended through 1989), \u201cis to avoid jurisdictional competition and conflict in making custody awards\u201d and facilitate the \u201corderly resolution of child custody disputes between parents located in different states\u201d (repealed by 2001 Laws, ch. 114, \u00a7 404 and recodified in the Uniform Child-Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act, NMSA 1978, \u00a7\u00a7 40-10A-101 to -403 (2001))). A children\u2019s court holding a kinship guardianship revocation hearing during abuse and neglect proceedings does not give rise to concerns of competing judicial decrees. In situations such as this case, children\u2019s courts have jurisdiction over kinship guardians during abuse and neglect proceedings. The children\u2019s court is in a better position than the family court to evaluate the \u201cchange in circumstances and [whether] the revocation is in the best interests of the child.\u201d Section 40-10B-12(B).\nSecond, the Legislature enacted both the KGA and the Children\u2019s Code with the purpose of preserving family unity. In revoking a kinship guardianship, both family courts and children\u2019s courts have concurrent objectives in trying to preserve notions of family unity while effecting the child\u2019s best interests.\nConsistent with legislative intent, we hold that family courts which appoint kinship guardianships have continuing concurrent jurisdiction over the kinship guardianship, with children\u2019s courts presiding over abuse and neglect proceedings. CYFD may petition to revoke the rights of a kinship guardian within those abuse and neglect proceedings. Our holding bridges the divide between the KGA and the ANA and provides courts with symbiotic authority to make rulings that are ultimately in the child\u2019s best interests. After receiving a proper motion to revoke a kinship guardianship during abuse and neglect proceedings, the children\u2019s court may conduct a full evidentiary hearing in accordance with our Rules of Evidence and act according to the revocation procedures of the KGA to revoke the kinship guardianship if the burden ofproofhas been met. Once the kinship guardianship has beenproperly revoked, the kinship guardian shall be dismissed from further participation in the abuse and neglect proceedings.\n4, Although we hold that kinship guardians have a statutory right to a revocation hearing prior to being dismissed from abuse and neglect proceedings, kinship guardians are not necessary and indispensable parties pursuant to Rule 1-019 NMRA\nThe Court of Appeals held that the children\u2019s court erred in dismissing Guardian because she was a necessary and indispensable party to the abuse and neglect proceedings until her kinship guardianship was revoked pursuant to the KGA. Djamila B., 2014-NMCA-045420.The Court of Appeals reasoned that the KGA conveyed to Guardian the \u201clegal rights and duties of a parent except the right to consent to adoption\u201d or the \u201crights and duties that the court orders retained by a parent.\u201d Id. \u00b6 13 (internal quotation marks citation omitted).\nA kinship guardian is therefore entitled to the statutory benefits of the [KGA], including the right that [reasonable efforts shall be made to preserve and reunify the family, with the paramount concern being the child\u2019s health and safety. . . . [T]he kinship guardian has the same right as a parent to be a party in a proceeding to terminate parental rights and to advocate or object to the termination of parental rights based on the best interest of the child until the kinship guardianship is properly terminated.\nId. \u00b6 13 (second alteration in original) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).\nThe legal concept of a necessary and indispensable party is set forth in Rule 1-019(B). However, Rule 1-019 is a rule of civil procedure that does not govern children\u2019s court cases concerning the Children\u2019s Code. See Rule 10-101(A)(l)(c) NMRA (\u201c[T]he Children\u2019s Court Rules [of Procedure] govern procedure in the children\u2019s courts of New Mexico in all matters involving children alleged by the state ... to be abused or neglected as defined in the [ANA] including proceedings to terminate parental rights which are filed pursuant to the [ANA].\u201d). Rule 10-121(B)(2) NMRA provides that a guardian must be a party to the abuse and neglect proceedings. \u201cIn proceedings on petitions alleging neglect or abuse or a family in need of court-ordered services, the parties to the action are: ... (2) a parent, guardian or custodian who has allegedly neglected or abused a child or is in need of court-ordered services.\u201d Rule 10-121(B). This rule does not state that the named parties are necessary and indispensable, and instead unambiguously directs that a guardian must be a party to the action.\nThis Court agrees with the outcome reached by the Court of Appeals on different grounds. Kinship guardians do have a statutory right to a revocation hearing pursuant to the KGA prior to being involuntarily dismissed from abuse and neglect proceedings. However, we hold that kinship guardians are not necessary and indispensable parties to ANA proceedings as defined by Rule 1-019. We clarify the holding of the Court of Appeals on this ground.\nB. Father\u2019s due process rights were not violated during the hearings on the motion to dismiss Guardian from the abuse and neglect proceedings\nFather filed a motion to intervene in this appeal after this Court granted certiorari. In his briefing, Father raised issues of procedural due process, arguing that he was not given a fair opportunity to voice concerns in the dismissal of Guardian from the abuse and neglect proceedings. Specifically, Father asks this Court to hold that \u201ca natural parent\u2019s expressed wish for family reunification via the auspices of placement with a relative must be taken into account prior to dismissal of the relative from abuse and neglect proceedings.\u201d Father further argues that his fundamental liberty interests based in the Fourteenth Amendment allow him to influence placement decisions for Children. CYFD argues that Father\u2019s claim was not properly preserved in the district court and cannot be raised for the first time on appeal. See Rule 12-216(A) NMRA (\u201cTo preserve a question for review it must appear that a ruling or decision by the district court was fairly invoked.\u201d).\nWe usually review denial of due process rights de novo. State ex rel. Children, Youth & Families Dep\u2019t v. Pamela R.D.G. (In re Pamela A.G.), 2006-NMSC-019, \u00b6 10, 139 N.M. 459, 134 P.3d 746. However, we do not issue a holding on this question because it is unnecessary due to our holding that Guardian is entitled to a revocation hearing prior to dismissal from the abuse and neglect proceedings.\nFather had various opportunities to meaningfully participate in the proceedings to' dismiss Guardian from the abuse and neglect proceedings. At the February 28,2012 hearing on permanency that resulted in the children\u2019s court\u2019s approval of apian of adoption and that first considered the motion to dismiss Guardian, Father\u2019s counsel and Father were present. Father\u2019s attorney was excused from a subsequent hearing on the motion to dismiss on March 27, 2012 to work on other pleadings because\u2018Father would remain a party to the abuse and neglect proceedings, regardless of the outcome of the hearing on the motion to dismiss Guardian. Father and his counsel both attended but did not participate in the May 8, 2012 evidentiary hearing on the motion to dismiss Guardian from the abuse and neglect proceedings, and again they stated no position on the motion to dismiss. Finally, Father did not intervene in the Court of Appeals action that preceded this appeal. As a result, CYFD argues that this Court lacks jurisdiction to consider the issue. See NMSA 1978, \u00a7 34-5-14 (1972) (providing that this Court has jurisdiction over original writs, decisions of the Court of Appeals, and actions certified to this Court by the Court of Appeals).\nThe circumstances surrounding Father\u2019s lack of participation in Guardian\u2019s dismissal and this late intervention raise troubling questions. However, all of these questions are irrelevant given our holding that Guardian is entitled to a revocation hearing in accordance with the KGA and our Rules of Evidence prior to being involuntarily dismissed from the abuse and neglect proceedings. Because Father\u2019s rights had not been terminated as of the time of this appeal, he will have an opportunity to participate in any proceeding initiated to revoke Guardian\u2019s kinship guardianship status if he so chooses.\nIII. CONCLUSION\nWe reverse the children\u2019s court ruling to dismiss Guardian as contrary to law. We affirm the Court of Appeals on different grounds and hold that while kinship guardians are not necessary and indispensable parties to abuse and neglect proceedings, a kinship guardian is nonetheless, entitled to a revocation hearing in accordance with the KGA and our Rules of Evidence prior to dismissal from abuse and neglectproceedings. We remand this case to the children\u2019s court to conduct a revocation hearing if CYFD continues to believe that such a hearing is warranted.\nIT IS SO ORDERED.\nEDWARD L. CH\u00c1VEZ, Justice\nWE CONCUR:\nBARBARA J. VIGIL, Chief Justice\nPETRA JIMENEZ MAES, Justice\nRICHARD C. BOSSON, Justice\nCHARLES W. DANIELS, Justice", "type": "majority", "author": "CH\u00c1VEZ, Justice." } ], "attorneys": [ "New Mexico Children, Youth and Families Department Charles E. Neelley, Chief Children\u2019s Court Attorney Rebecca J. Liggett, Children\u2019s Court Attorney Santa Fe, NM for Petitioner", "Flinkle, Hensley, Shanor & Martin, L.L.P. Julie Sakura Santa Fe, NM for Respondent", "The Law Offices of Nancy L. Simmons, P.C. Nancy L. Simmons Albuquerque, NM for Intervenor" ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO\nOpinion Number: 2015-NMSC-003\nFiling Date: December 15, 2014\nDocket No. 34,583\nIN THE MATTER OF MAHDJID B. and ALIAH B., children, STATE OF NEW MEXICO, ex rel. CHILDREN, YOUTH AND FAMILIES DEPARTMENT, Petitioner-Petitioner, v. DJAMILA B., Respondent-Respondent, and ABDEL M. B., Intervenor.\nNew Mexico Children, Youth and Families Department Charles E. Neelley, Chief Children\u2019s Court Attorney Rebecca J. Liggett, Children\u2019s Court Attorney Santa Fe, NM for Petitioner\nFlinkle, Hensley, Shanor & Martin, L.L.P. Julie Sakura Santa Fe, NM for Respondent\nThe Law Offices of Nancy L. Simmons, P.C. Nancy L. Simmons Albuquerque, NM for Intervenor" }, "file_name": "0209-01", "first_page_order": 225, "last_page_order": 238 }