{ "id": 3668278, "name": "STATE OF NEW MEXICO, ex rel., CHILDREN, YOUTH AND FAMILIES DEPARTMENT, Petitioner-Appellee, v. AMANDA H., Respondent-Appellant, and In the Matter of Nathaniel H., a Child", "name_abbreviation": "State ex rel. Children, Youth & Families Department v. Amanda H.", "decision_date": "2006-08-15", "docket_number": "No. 25,623", "first_page": "299", "last_page": "306", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "141 N.M. 299" }, { "type": "parallel", "cite": "154 P.3d 674" }, { "type": "parallel", "cite": "2007-NMCA-029" } ], "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": "2000-NMCA-025", "category": "reporters:neutral", "reporter": "NMCA", "case_ids": [ 106573 ], "weight": 3, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "\u00b6\u00b6 25, 26" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nm/128/0701-01" ] }, { "cite": "2002-NMCA-103", "category": "reporters:neutral", "reporter": "NMCA", "case_ids": [ 260687 ], "weight": 6, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "\u00b6 20" }, { "page": "\u00b6 21" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nm/132/0772-01" ] }, { "cite": "121 N.M. 341", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.M.", "case_ids": [ 1566560 ], "weight": 2, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nm/121/0341-01" ] }, { "cite": "1996-NMCA-018", "category": "reporters:neutral", "reporter": "NMCA", "pin_cites": [ { "page": "\u00b6 36" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "120 N.M. 463", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.M.", "case_ids": [ 1559008 ], "weight": 4, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "466" }, { "page": "1069" }, { "page": "469" }, { "page": "1072", "parenthetical": "finding the evidence sufficient to establish neglect where mother left her children in the care of her ill mother knowing that she could not properly care for the children and where the children were unattended for long periods of time" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nm/120/0463-01" ] }, { "cite": "2005-NMCA-094", "category": "reporters:neutral", "reporter": "NMCA", "case_ids": [ 2550552 ], "weight": 3, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "\u00b6 7" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nm/138/0044-01" ] }, { "cite": "2005-NMCA-066", "category": "reporters:neutral", "reporter": "NMCA", "case_ids": [ 929133 ], "weight": 22, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "\u00b6 26" }, { "page": "\u00b6 7" }, { "page": "\u00b6 7" }, { "page": "\u00b6 28" }, { "page": "\u00b6 29" }, { "page": "\u00b6 30" }, { "page": "\u00b6 22" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nm/137/0687-01" ] }, { "cite": "2001-NMCA-071", "category": "reporters:neutral", "reporter": "NMCA", "case_ids": [ 352419 ], "weight": 6, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "\u00b6 24" }, { "page": "\u00b6 17" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nm/130/0781-01" ] }, { "cite": "2002-NMCA-070", "category": "reporters:neutral", "reporter": "NMCA", "case_ids": [ 260757 ], "weight": 6, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "\u00b6 9" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nm/132/0375-01" ] }, { "cite": "2001-NMSC-028", "category": "reporters:neutral", "reporter": "NMSC", "case_ids": [ 352271 ], "weight": 6, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "\u00b6 9" }, { "page": "\u00b6 10" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nm/130/0734-01" ] }, { "cite": "2006-NMSC-019", "category": "reporters:neutral", "reporter": "NMSC", "case_ids": [ 2544297 ], "weight": 3, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nm/139/0459-01" ] }, { "cite": "2005-NMCA-026", "category": "reporters:neutral", "reporter": "NMCA", "case_ids": [ 929187 ], "weight": 3, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "\u00b6 42" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nm/137/0137-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 1016, "char_count": 26108, "ocr_confidence": 0.677, "pagerank": { "raw": 1.21552618872514e-07, "percentile": 0.5970299812846231 }, "sha256": "5c3dd09119a14141b94b5ff84bc1a5f32906356e438247aca578287daa4b366b", "simhash": "1:96aafe9662ba7dcb", "word_count": 4225 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T21:58:03.770248+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [ "WE CONCUR: CYNTHIA A. FRY and IRA ROBINSON, Judges." ], "parties": [ "STATE OF NEW MEXICO, ex rel., CHILDREN, YOUTH AND FAMILIES DEPARTMENT, Petitioner-Appellee, v. AMANDA H., Respondent-Appellant, and In the Matter of Nathaniel H., a Child." ], "opinions": [ { "text": "OPINION\nALARID, Judge.\n{1} Amanda H. (Mother) appeals the district court\u2019s adjudication that she neglected her infant son (Child). We conclude that the evidence was not sufficient to support the district court\u2019s adjudication that Child was neglected by Mother and reverse. Additionally, we hold that an appeal of an abuse or neglect adjudication challenging the sufficiency of the evidence is not rendered moot by the district court\u2019s dismissal of the underlying case while the adjudication is on appeal.\nBACKGROUND\n{2} In late 2004, Mother was seen at St. Vincent\u2019s Hospital where her perinatologist recommended that labor be induced. Mother told hospital staff that she had herpes, and she wanted a caesarean delivery because she believed the disease could be transferred to Child if she delivered vaginally. Doctors examined her and determined that a caesarean delivery was not indicated. When Mother and her partner, David, were informed that Mother would have to deliver Child vaginally, they became angry and verbally abusive towards hospital staff. A hospital social worker and a security officer were called in to calm the situation.\n{3} The hospital social worker testified that when she arrived, Mother was \u201cstrongly\u201d stating that she could not deliver Child vaginally and insisting on a caesarean delivery. She also threatened to hit nurses if they touched her and spoke to staff in an insulting manner. Despite assurances from doctors that a vaginal delivery did not pose a risk to Child, Mother continued to insist on a caesarean delivery, at one point stating that she would leave the hospital if she were made to undergo a vaginal delivery. A staff member eventually persuaded Mother to remain, and she delivered Child vaginally without complications.\n{4} The Children, Youth and Families Department (CYFD) became involved because several hours after Child\u2019s birth, Child\u2019s urine tested as a \u201cweak positive\u201d for the presence of barbiturates. A retest of the same sample of urine also tested as a \u201cweak positive.\u201d Hospital staff notified CYFD of the positive toxicology screen and their concerns regarding Mother\u2019s and David\u2019s behavior prior to delivery. A CYFD social worker and a Santa Fe Police Department officer responded to the hospital, where they met with the hospital social worker, Mother, and David. When they arrived, Mother and David were upset and demanded to have Child\u2019s urine retested. David\u2019s tone and manner were deemed confrontational, and after several minutes, the hospital security officer gave David a \u201cno trespass\u201d order requiring him to stay away from the hospital for 48 hours. Santa Fe police gave CYFD a 48-hour hold for custody of Child.\n{5} Child was retested for barbiturates several hours after the original toxicology test, and Mother was also given a toxicology screen. This time, Child\u2019s urine was negative for the presence of barbiturates, and Mother tested positive only for pain medications administered during delivery. Mother was very upset and raised her voice. Mother complained about her treatment, and accused hospital staff of incompetence for referring the matter to CYFD.\n{6} St. Vincent\u2019s Hospital does not allow smoking inside the hospital. CYFD presented evidence that Mother took frequent smoke breaks during which she asked nurses to care for Child at the nurses\u2019 station. On one occasion, she was gone for an hour, which the hospital social worker testified was an unusually long time for a smoke break. Additionally, once prior to delivery, Mother removed a fetal monitor used to measure stress to the fetus so that she could leave the interior of the hospital to smoke, although hospital staff cautioned her against doing so.\n{7} Mother visited Dr. Kristine Parke twice for prenatal care during her third trimester of pregnancy. During these visits, Mother disclosed to Dr. Parke that she had used narcotics during her first trimester before discovering she was pregnant and smoked marijuana once during her third trimester.\n{8} CYFD requested a psychological evaluation of Mother to assess the impact of any mental health issues on her ability to parent. The psychologist met with Mother for a single session lasting three and one-half hours and evaluated her by means of diagnostic tests and an interview. He did not observe Mother interacting with Child. The psychologist testified that he was unable to do a traditional parenting skills assessment on Mother because she had only had a limited time with Child. The assessment of Mother\u2019s parenting ability was made based on her general psychological health, and did not specifically measure her parenting attitudes or traits.\n{9} The psychologist diagnosed Mother with (1) narcissistic personality disorder (NPD), (2) histrionic personality disorder, (3) anti-social personality disorder, (4) adjustment disorder with anxiety (due to having Child removed from her so soon after birth), and (5) opioide dependency in partial remission. The psychologist testified that Mother scored extremely high for NPD, which he characterized as \u201cputting one\u2019s own self-interest ahead of others in one\u2019s care.\u201d The psychologist concluded that Mother had difficulty regulating extreme emotions, such as sadness or anger, when she felt them intensely. The psychologist testified that histrionic personality disorder may cause a person to act on impulse without much forethought. A person with antisocial personality disorder may feel that they are above the law when they want something. The psychologist testified that these diagnoses caused him concern about Mother\u2019s ability to develop empathy with Child and a healthy emotional attachment to Child. He stated that the risk to a child from a parent with NPD can range from \u201cmild emotional distress to severe neglect and abuse,\u201d but he could not say where on that continuum it might fall in this ease.\n{10} In her conversations with the psychologist, Dr. Parke, and social workers, Mother disclosed that she had a significant history of drug abuse and a criminal history, including a one-year period of incarceration for drug distribution in 2001. Mother had been the victim of violence in her past and had engaged in violence towards others. Mother also told the hospital social worker that she was concerned about her ability to continue to pay the rent for their apartment.\n{11} Dr. Parke observed Mother with Child on the two days following Child\u2019s birth and testified that Mother exhibited \u201cgreat parenting\u201d and was \u201cperfectly appropriate, very loving, very bonded, very responsible\u201d to Child. Dr. Parke testified that Child was healthy, well nourished, and breast-feeding well, and that Mother was taking \u201cvery appropriate care\u201d of Child. Dr. Parke also testified that some of Mother\u2019s behavior and outbursts made her nervous. The hospital social worker testified that she only witnessed positive interactions between Mother and Child and that Mother was \u201cvery attentive\u201d to Child and demonstrated \u201cmuch love.\u201d\n{12} The district court adjudicated the Child neglected, but did not make any specific factual findings on the record. Mother appealed the adjudication of neglect. While the case was pending on appeal, the district court retained jurisdiction to conduct periodic hearings to review the parties\u2019 compliance with the treatment plan and review Child\u2019s custody. See State ex rel. Children, Youth & Families Dep\u2019t v. Frank G., 2005-NMCA-026, \u00b6 42, 137 N.M. 137, 108 P.3d 543, aff'd, In re Pamela A. G., 2006-NMSC-019, 139 N.M. 459, 134 P.3d 746. Before the case had been fully briefed, the district court dismissed the underlying ease and returned Child to Mother\u2019s custody. Additional facts are set out in the analysis section of the opinion.\nANALYSIS\nI. MOOTNESS\n{13} As an initial matter, we must address the issue of mootness. In Frank G., we determined that an adjudication of abuse or neglect is a final, appealable order. Id. \u00b6\u00b6 39, 41. While the adjudication of abuse or neglect is on appeal, the district court retains jurisdiction to conduct periodic hearings to monitor the parties\u2019 compliance with treatment plans and to enter additional orders. Id. \u00b6 42; NMSA 1978, \u00a7\u00a7 32A-4-22, -25 (2005). This case requires us to determine the effect of a dismissal of the case by the district court while the adjudication of abuse or neglect is on appeal. CYFD argues that because the underlying case has been dismissed and custody of Child returned to Mother, the appeal of the neglect adjudication is moot.\n{14} Generally, appellate courts do not decide moot cases. Gunaji v. Macias, 2001-NMSC-028, \u00b6 9, 130 N.M. 734, 31 P.3d 1008. \u201cAn appeal is moot when no actual controversy exists, and an appellate ruling will not grant the appellant any actual relief.\u201d State v. Sergio B., 2002-NMCA-070, \u00b6 9, 132 N.M. 375, 48 P.3d 764. Mother argues that the appeal is not moot because she faces potential adverse consequences as a result of the adjudication that she neglected Child. She notes that termination of parental rights proceedings can proceed from adjudications of neglect, and argues that her parental rights continue to be jeopardized by the adjudication that she neglected Child. We agree with Mother that the adjudication of neglect could adversely affect her in the future. See State ex rel. Children, Youth & Families Dep\u2019t v. Michelle B., 2001-NMCA-071, \u00b6 24, 130 N.M. 781, 32 P.3d 790 (finding that evidence of sibling abuse or neglect can be relevant to a determination of whether circumstances exist to warrant a change in custody); State ex rel. Children, Youth & Families Dep\u2019t v. Shawna C., 2005-NMCA-066, \u00b6 26, 137 N.M. 687, 114 P.3d 367 (stating that prior harm to other children may be relevant to abuse or neglect of a different child). However, we do not need to decide whether the potential adverse collateral consequences of the neglect adjudication are sufficient to create an actual controversy because we find that this case presents an exception to the mootness doctrine. An appellate court can review moot cases which present issues of substantial public interest or which are capable of repetition yet evade review. Gunaji, 2001-NMSC-028, \u00b6 10, 130 N.M. 734, 31 P.3d 1008.\n{15} This case presents a procedural situation similar to that in Sergio B., 2002-NMCA-070, 132 N.M. 375, 48 P.3d 764. In Sergio B., a child adjudicated delinquent appealed an order that committed him to CYFD custody for an additional year and placed the child under protective supervision for six months. Id. \u00b6 1. On appeal, the child argued that the district court lacked jurisdiction to enter the order and that the evidence was insufficient to justify extending his commitment to CYFD\u2019s custody. Id. While the appeal was pending, but before briefing was completed, the period of protective supervision expired. Id. \u00b6 8. The State argued that the case was moot because there was no longer a case or controversy once the period of protective supervision ended. Id. \u00b6 9.\n{16} We held that the issues raised by child on appeal were capable of repetition yet evading review, thus bringing the case within an exception to the mootness doctrine. Id. \u00b6\u00b6 10, 11. We noted that many district court cases would involve short-term commitments of less than a year, which would expire before a full appeal could be taken and would evade appellate review if we did not invoke an exception to the mootness doctrine. Id. \u00b611.\n{17} The same is true of adjudications of neglect or abuse. Many of these adjudications may involve only short-term deprivations of custody and district court oversight of treatment plans. NMSA 1978, \u00a7 32A-4-25.1 (2005) (governing permanency hearings and judicial review of the child\u2019s dispositional order and contemplating dismissal of the case and return of custody to the parent as early as six months after the initial judicial review of the disposition). See \u00a7 32A-4r-25.1(A) (mandating that a permanency hearing be commenced within six months of the initial judicial review of the dispositional order); \u00a7 32A-4-25.1 (D)(3) (mandating that the district court dismiss the case and return custody of the child to the parent if sufficient evidence is not presented at the permanency hearing to rebut the presumption that returning the child to parent\u2019s custody is in child\u2019s best interest); see also State v. Jose S., 2005-NMCA-094, \u00b6 7, 138 N.M. 44, 116 P.3d 115 (pointing out that the short time frame for Children\u2019s Code dispositions and the lengthy time for disposition of general calendar cases meant that appeals of illegal sentences could be capable of repetition but would evade review).\n{18} Because the issue of the sufficiency of the evidence is capable of repetition but may evade appellate review, we agree that we should reach the merits of Mother\u2019s appeal on this issue.\nII. SUFFICIENCY OF THE EVIDENCE\n{19} The standard of proof in an abuse or neglect adjudication is clear and convincing evidence that the child was abused or neglected. NMSA 1978, \u00a7 32A-4-20(H) (2005); Shawna C., 2005-NMCA-066, \u00b6 7, 137 N.M. 687, 114 P.3d 367. \u201cFor evidence to be clear and convincing, it must instantly tilt the scales in the affirmative when weighed against the evidence in opposition and the fact finder\u2019s mind is left with an abiding conviction that the evidence is true.\u201d In re Termination of Parental Rights of Eventyr J., 120 N.M. 463, 466, 902 P.2d 1066, 1069 (Ct.App.1995) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). We employ a narrow standard of review and do not re-weigh the evidence. Shawna C., 2005-NMCA-066, \u00b6 7, 137 N.M. 687, 114 P.3d 367. Rather, we review to determine whether, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prevailing party, the fact finder could properly determine that the clear and convincing evidence standard was met. Id.\n{20} On appeal, CYFD argues that the evidence was sufficient to support the adjudication of neglect, citing (1) the positive toxicology report, (2) the erratic and volatile behavior of Mother and David, (3) Mother\u2019s insistence that she could not deliver Child vaginally because of herpes, (4) Mother\u2019s disclosures to Dr. Parke regarding prenatal substance abuse, (5) Mother\u2019s history of violence, (6) Mother\u2019s criminal history, (7) Mother\u2019s willingness to disregard medical advice by removing the fetal monitor so she could smoke and her statements that she would leave the hospital prior to delivering Child, (8) evidence that Mother left Child in the care of nurses while she took smoke breaks, and (9) the instability in Mother\u2019s housing situation. The district court found that Child was neglected under two statutory definitions of neglect: NMSA 1978, \u00a7 32A-4-2(E)(2), (4) (1999). We analyze the evidence under the appropriate statutory provisions, and conclude that the evidence was not sufficient to support the adjudication of neglect under either statutory definition of neglect.\nA. Section 32A-4-2(E)(2)\n{21} Section 32A-4-2(E)(2) defines a \u201cneglected child\u201d as one \u201cwho is without proper parental care and control or subsistence, education, medical or other care or control necessary for the child\u2019s well-being because of the faults or habits of the child\u2019s parent, ... or [the] refusal of the parent, ... when able to do so, to provide them.\u201d To properly find that Child was neglected under this section, the district court must have been presented with clear and convincing evidence of Mother\u2019s culpability through intentional or negligent disregard of Child\u2019s well-being and proper needs. Shawna C., 2005-NMCA-066, \u00b6 28, 137 N.M. 687, 114 P.3d 367; Michelle B., 2001-NMCA-071, \u00b6 17, 130 N.M. 781, 32 P.3d 790.\n{22} CYFD\u2019s evidence that Child was without proper parental care or control consisted of (1) Child\u2019s initial positive toxicology test, (2) Mother\u2019s admissions to using narcotics during her first trimester and smoking marijuana once during her third trimester, and (3) evidence that Mother left Child in the care of nurses while she left the hospital to smoke. Viewed in the light most favorable to CYFD, the toxicology evidence was inconclusive, and thus, could not meet the clear and convincing evidence standard. CYFD\u2019s witness, Dr. Parke, testified that the initial toxicology result on Child\u2019s urine was most likely a \u201cfalse positive.\u201d Dr. Parke\u2019s opinion was based on the fact that Child tested negative for barbiturates only a few hours later, that Mother also tested negative for barbiturates, and that the initial positive toxicology report was only \u201cweakly positive\u201d for barbiturates. Dr. Parke testified that the particular type of toxicology test used in this case often results in both false positives and false negatives. Dr. Parke also testified that the initial positive toxicology result could be the result of proteins, amino acids, or bilirubins in Child\u2019s urine or the manner in which the sample was collected. Although Dr. Parke testified that she could not be sure that the result was a false positive, the burden was on CYFD to establish that Child was neglected by clear and convincing evidence. In this case, the initial positive toxicology evidence was not sufficient to instantly tilt the scales in the affirmative when weighed against the evidence in opposition, and it cannot be the basis for an adjudication that Child was neglected.\n{23} Mother admitted to using narcotics during her first trimester and to smoking marijuana once during her third trimester. On appeal, CYFD contends that Child\u2019s prenatal drug exposure alone was sufficient to establish neglect. We disagree that a child who has been exposed to drugs prenatally is per se a neglected child under the Abuse and Neglect Act. While evidence of a mother\u2019s prenatal drug use can be relevant under Section 32A-4-2(E)(2), here CYFD did not establish that Child was without proper parental care because of the first trimester drug use. CYFD presented no evidence that Child\u2019s health was negatively affected by the prenatal drug exposure or that Child was born addicted to any drug. Rather, the evidence showed that Child was born healthy and without signs of drug exposure or dependency. See State ex rel. Children, Youth & Families Dep\u2019t v. David F. Sr., 1996-NMCA-018, \u00b6 36, 121 N.M. 341, 911 P.2d 235 (finding clear and convincing evidence of neglect where child exhibited signs of fetal alcohol syndrome at four months of age and had bald patches from being left to lie for long periods of time). Under these circumstances, the fact that Child was exposed to drugs prenatally was not sufficient to make Child neglected.\n{24} Finally, the evidence that Mother left Child in the care of nurses while she left the hospital to smoke was insufficient to establish neglect. The hospital social worker testified that during her stay in the hospital, Mother asked nurses if she could leave Child with them at the nurses\u2019 station while she left the interior of the hospital to smoke. On one occasion, Mother left Child with the nurses for more than an hour, which the hospital social worker testified was an unusually long time for a smoke break. Even if one hour is longer than what most people take for a smoke break, we do not believe that Mother\u2019s arranging to leave Child in the care of nurses constitutes neglect. See In re Guardianship of Ashleigh R., 2002-NMCA-103, \u00b6 20, 132 N.M. 772, 55 P.3d 984 (\u201cEvidence that a parent left a child in the care of others is not necessarily sufficient to establish neglect, as long as the parent continues to insure that the caretaker is properly providing for the children\u2019s needs.\u201d). Here, CYFD presented no evidence that Child\u2019s needs were not provided for while Child was in the care of the nurses. In the absence of evidence of some harm to Child from the caretaker or that the parent knew that the caretaker was unsuitable, evidence that a parent left her child with a babysitter for periods of up to one hour is insufficient to establish neglect. See In re Termination of Parental Rights of Eventyr J., 120 N.M. at 469, 902 P.2d at 1072 (finding the evidence sufficient to establish neglect where mother left her children in the care of her ill mother knowing that she could not properly care for the children and where the children were unattended for long periods of time).\nB. Section 32A-4-2(E)(4)\n{25} The district court also adjudicated Child neglected under Section 32A-4-2(E)(4), which defines a neglected child as one \u201cwhose parent ... is unable to discharge his responsibilities to and for the child because of incarceration, hospitalization or physical or mental disorder or incapacity.\u201d Under this section, the circumstances described in this section will constitute neglect if, and only if, such a status causes a parent to be \u201cunable to discharge his or her parental responsibilities.\u201d Shawna C., 2005-NMCA-066, \u00b6 29, 137 N.M. 687, 114 P.3d 367. Under this section, an unfavorable personal status of a parent, such as incarceration, mental illness, prior convictions, or addiction, is alone insufficient to support an adjudication that a child is neglected. The Abuse and Neglect Act requires that the unfavorable status render the parent unable to provide proper parental care or discharge his or her responsibilities to the child. Id. \u00b6\u00b629, 30. The focus of the inquiry under this section is on \u201cthe acts or omissions of the parents in their caretaking function and not on apparent shortcomings of a given parent due to his or her unfavorable status.\u201d Id. \u00b6 30. The unfavorable personal status of the parent \u201cis ... relevant only to the extent that it prompts either the harms defined as abuse, or the neglect.\u201d Id.\n{26} CYFD\u2019s evidence under this section was that Mother had a long history of drug addiction and a criminal history, including several arrests and a conviction for a drug distribution offense for which she was incarcerated for a year in 2001. CYFD also presented evidence that Mother had a history of violence that included being the victim of violence and engaging in violent acts towards others.\n{27} However, CYFD did not present evidence that Mother was unable to properly care for Child due to any of these circumstances. Evidence of Mother\u2019s history of violence, her former drug addiction, and her criminal history were relevant only to the extent that they rendered her unable to properly care for Child. Shawna C., 2005-NMCA-066, \u00b6 30, 137 N.M. 687, 114 P.3d 367; In re Guardianship of Ashleigh R., 2002-NMCA-103, \u00b6 21, 132 N.M. 772, 55 P.3d 984 (\u201cEvidence of past domestic violence can be relevant in an action for neglect when the abused parent fails to recognize the harm the violence causes the children or refuses to get help in ending the situation.\u201d); State ex rel. Children, Youth & Families Dep\u2019t v. Vanessa C., 2000-NMCA-025, \u00b6\u00b6 25, 26, 128 N.M. 701, 997 P.2d 833 (showing evidence of the mother\u2019s ongoing domestic violence, ongoing substance abuse, and ongoing criminal involvement was sufficient to establish that children were neglected).\n{28} We find it significant that the evidence concerning Mother\u2019s actual interactions with Child demonstrated that Mother provided appropriate parental care to Child. Dr. Parke observed that Mother ejdhibited \u201cgreat\u201d parenting skills and that she was very appropriate and very loving to Child. Mother was also very bonded and very responsible to Child. The hospital social worker testified that she only observed positive interactions between Mother and Child and that Mother was very loving toward Child.\n{29} CYFD\u2019s evidence at best established a risk of future neglect. This same is true of the evidence of Mother\u2019s angry interactions with hospital staff, her insistence on a caesarean delivery for Child despite doctors\u2019 assurances, her willingness to disregard medical advice, and her potential housing instability. While supporting the view that Mother behaved in an irrational and unreasonable manner, the evidence at best raised only tenuous inferences that Child might be neglected in the future. Without a showing that any of these factors actually rendered Mother unable to properly care for Child, the evidence amounted to inferences of future harm, which are not sufficient to establish neglect. See Shawna C., 2005-NMCA-066, \u00b6 22, 137 N.M. 687, 114 P.3d 367 (showing evidence that the father was angry, that he lacked empathy with the child, that he had personality traits broadly corresponding with violence, and that he had a \u201csomewhat aged\u201d criminal history supported only a vague inference of future harm and was not sufficient to establish neglect).\nIII. CONCLUSION\n{30} Even when the evidence is viewed in the light most favorable to CYFD, it is not sufficient to establish by clear and convincing evidence that Child was neglected under Sections 32A-4-2(E)(2) and (4). CYFD\u2019s evidence consisted of (1) inconclusive toxicology reports; (2) the psychologist\u2019s opinion that Mother might have difficulty developing empathy for Child based on her general psychological health; (3) inferences of future harm based on Mother\u2019s criminal history, former drug addiction, and history of violence; (4) and speculation that Mother\u2019s volatility towards hospital staff and willingness to disregard medical advice for herself might indicate future neglect of Child.\n{31} CYFD did not establish that Child was without proper parental care under Section 32A-4-2(E)(2), or that Mother was unable to care for Child due to mental illness or other status under Section 32A-4-2(E)(4). We therefore reverse the adjudication of neglect. Because we reverse on this basis, we do not reach Respondent\u2019s remaining arguments on appeal.\n{32} IT IS SO ORDERED.\nWE CONCUR: CYNTHIA A. FRY and IRA ROBINSON, Judges.", "type": "majority", "author": "ALARID, Judge." } ], "attorneys": [ "NM Children, Youth & Families Department, Rebecca J. Liggett, Ida M. Lujan, Santa Fe, NM, for Appellee.", "Lopez, Sakura & Boyd, LLP, Todd M. Lopez, Santa Fe, NM, for Appellant.", "Johanna L. Studebaker, Santa Fe, NM, Guardian ad litem." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "2007-NMCA-029\n154 P.3d 674\nSTATE OF NEW MEXICO, ex rel., CHILDREN, YOUTH AND FAMILIES DEPARTMENT, Petitioner-Appellee, v. AMANDA H., Respondent-Appellant, and In the Matter of Nathaniel H., a Child.\nNo. 25,623.\nCourt of Appeals of New Mexico.\nAug. 15, 2006.\nNM Children, Youth & Families Department, Rebecca J. Liggett, Ida M. Lujan, Santa Fe, NM, for Appellee.\nLopez, Sakura & Boyd, LLP, Todd M. Lopez, Santa Fe, NM, for Appellant.\nJohanna L. Studebaker, Santa Fe, NM, Guardian ad litem." }, "file_name": "0299-01", "first_page_order": 349, "last_page_order": 356 }