July 3, 2019-State of New Mexico ex rel. Children, Youth & Families Department v. Leandra B., No. A-1-CA-l38041

1 	IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO
2 	STATE OF NEW MEXICO ex rel.
3 	CHILDREN YOUTH AND FAMILIES
4 DEPARTMENT,
5 	Petitioner-Appellee,
6 v. 	No. A-1-CA-38041
7 LEANDRA B.,
8 	Respondent-Appellant,
9 and
10 	ORLANDO 0.,
11 	Respondent,
12 	IN THE MATTER OF AHONESTY 0.,
13 	Child.
14 APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF VALENCIA COUNTY
15 	Allen R. Smith, District Judge
16 	Children, Youth & Families Department
17 Rebecca J. Liggett, Chief Children's Court Attorney
18 	Santa Fe, NM
19 Kelly P. O'Neill, Assistant Children's Court Attorney
20 Albuquerque, NM
21 	for Appellee
22 	Law Offices of Jane B. Yohalem
23 	Jane B. Yohalem
24 	Santa Fe, NM
25 	for Appellant
Court of Appeals of New Mexico
Filed 7/3/2019 8:24 AM

1 Law Offices of Nancy L. Simmons, P.C.
2 Nancy L. Simmons
3 Albuquerque, NM
4 for Respondent
5 Esteli C. Juarez
6 Albuquerque, NM
7 Guardian Ad Litem for Child
8 	MEMORANDUM OPINION
9 M. ZAMORA, Chief Judge.
10 	{1} 	Respondent 	(Mother) 	appeals 	the 	district 	court's 	order terminating 	her
11 	parental rights. In this Court's notice of proposed disposition, we proposed to
12 	summarily affirm. Mother filed a memorandum in opposition (MIO), which we have
13 	duly considered. Remaining unpersuaded, we affirm.
14 	{2} 	In her memorandum in opposition, Mother continues to argue the evidence
15 	was inadequate to establish that the Children, Youth & Families Department
16 	(CYFD) made reasonable efforts to assist her in remedying the causes and conditions
17 that brought Child into custody. [MIO 7-1 O] In our calendar notice, we discussed the
18 reasonableness 	of CYFD's efforts in regard to housing and substance abuse;
19 however, 	the 	memorandum 	in 	opposition 	only 	addresses 	CYFD's 	efforts
20 surrounding Mother's substance abuse and, thus, we do not address CYFD's'.efforts
21 	in regard to housing. See State v. Johnson, 1988-NMCA-029,, 8, 107 N.M. 356,
22 758 P.2d 306 (stating that when a case is decided on the summary calendar, an issue
2

1 is deemed abandoned when a party fails to respond to the proposed disposition of
2 that issue).
3 	{3} 	Regarding her substance abuse, Mother asserts the efforts were unreasonable
4 because CYFD did not refer her to long-term residential treatment, which she
5 claimed at the termination hearing is the only type of treatment that could alleviate
6 her substance abuse. [MIO 2] Mother contends her position is supported by literature
7 in the field, and claims CYFD's witnesses agreed long-term residential treatment
8 might benefit Mother. [MIO 2, 6] However, Mother's position was not based on a
9 professional recommendation concerning Mother's situation. [MIO 2] Cf State ex
10 rel. Children, Youth & Families Dep'tv. BrandyS., 2007-NM_CA-135, 16, 142 N.M.
11 	705, 168 P.3d 1129 (describing a situation where an expert witness recommended
12 that a parent attend a long-term, residential substance abuse treatment program). As
13 	we explained in our calendar notice, CYFD is not required to do everything possible
14 to assist a parent, and is additionally not required to make efforts subject to
15 	conditions imposed by the parent. [CN 5-6] In addition, Mother's participation in
16 the substance abuse aspects of her treatment plan was sporadic. [CN 5; MIO 6] See
17 State ex rel. Children, Youth & Families Dep't v. Patricia H, 2002-NM_CA-061,
18 123, 132 N.M. 299, 47 P.3d 859 ("What constitutes reasonable efforts may vary
19 with a number of factors, such as the level of cooperation demonstrated by the
3

1 parent[.]"). To the extent Mother is inviting this Court to modify our prior case law
2 regarding reasonable efforts by CYFD [MIO 9-10], we decline to do so.
3 	{4} 	Finally, although Mother takes issue with CYFD's position that long-term
4 residential treatment did not fit within CYFD's permanency timeline for Child [MIO
5 6], we note that both state and federal law impose time lines regarding establishing
6 permanency for children. See State ex rel. 	Children, Youth & Families Dep 't v.
7 Maria C., 2004-NMCA-083, 153, 136 N.M. 53, 94 P.3d 796 ("Under timelines
8 imposed by state and federal law, parents do not have an unlimited period of time to
9 be available for their children."); Patricia H, 2002-NMCA-061, 126 (explaining
10 that under federal law, "states are not required to make reunification efforts for an
11 	indefinite period of time").
12 	{5} 	Mother has 	not 	otherwise 	asserted any 	facts, 	law, 	or 	argument 	in 	her
13 	memorandum in opposition that persuade this Court that our notice of proposed
14 disposition was erroneous. See Hennessy v. Duryea, 1998-NMCA-036, 124, 124
15 	N.M. 754,955 P.2d 683 ("Our courts have repeatedly held that, in summary calendar
16 cases, the burden is on the party opposing the proposed disposition to clearly point
17 out errors in fact or law.").
18 	{6} 	Accordingly, for the reasons stated in our notice of proposed disposition and
19 herein, we affirm the district court's order terminating Mother's parental rights.
4

1 {7} 	IT IS SO ORDERED.
2
3
4 WE CONCUR:
59,~
6 J. MILES HANISEE, Judge
7 	~i?[l~8 MEGAN P. DUFF~dge
M. MONICA ZAMO
5