January 23, 2020- CYFD v. Kimberly M., No. A-1-CA-38454

1 printed pages contain little extracted OCR body text; searchable legal-body completeness has not been established for those pages.

OCR transcription for search; preserved printed pages are authoritative

6)
7
8)
9
10)
11
12
13
14
15

16)
17

18
19
20
21
22

23

24
29

Corrections to this opinion/decision not affecting the outcome, at the Court's discretion, can occur up to the time of publication
with NM Compilation Commission. The Court will ensure that the electronic version of this opinion/decision is updated accordingly
in Odyssey.

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO
Court of Appeals of New Mexico
STATE OF NEW MEXICO ex red. Filed 1/23/2020 9:25 AM
CHILDREN, YOUTH & FAMILIES i
DEPARTMENT, wn EB ;
Petitioner Appellee, Mark Reynolds
Vv. No. A-1-CA-38454
KIMBERLY M,
Respondent- Appellant,
and
SAMUEL K. and AMY B,,
Respondents,
IN THE MATTER OF LOGAN K,,

LIBERTY K., MAKENZIE K., and
ALEXIS K,

Children.
APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF TORRANCE COUNTY
Matthew G. Reynolds, District J udge

Children, Y outh & Families Department

Rebecca Liggett, Chief Children’s Court Attomey
Santa Fe, NM

Kelly P. O’ Neill, Children’s Court Attomey

Albuquerque, NM
for Appellee

Susan C. Baker
Fl Prado, NM

2
for Appellant	1
Georgia Garman Berrenberg	2
Albuquerque, NM	3
Guardian Ad Litem	4
MEMORANDUM OPINION	5
VANZI, Judge.	6
{1} 	Respondent Kimberly M. (Mother) appeals from the district court’s judgment	7
terminating her parental rights. In this Court’s notice of proposed disposition, we	8
proposed to summarily affirm. Mother filed a memorandum in opposition (MIO),	9
which we have duly considered. Remaining unpersuaded, we affirm.	10
{2} 	In her MIO, Mother continues to contend that the evidence was insufficient to	11
support the termination of parental rights (TPR) judgment. Specifically, Mother	12
contends that there was not clear and convincing evidence to support the district	13
court’s determination that (1) the causes and conditions that brought Children into	14
custody were unlikely to change in the foreseeable future [MIO 10]; and (2) the	15
Children, Youth and Families Department (the Department) made reasonable efforts	16
to assist Mother [MIO 14]. Mother also maintains that without the full audio	17
transcript of the proceedings, there is no viable way to discern the sufficiency of the	18
evidence to support the TPR; and without the transcript, the record proper alone is	19
insufficient 	to 	adequately 	determine 	the 	extent 	and 	reasonableness 	of 	the	20
Department’s efforts. [MIO 13, 16]	21

3
{3} 	While Mother states that “[this] Court based its findings solely on the district	1
court’s termination order, the accuracy of which Mother disputes[,]” [MIO 12],	2
Mother has failed to specifically contest any of the findings made by the district	3
court as unsupported by evidence presented at the TPR hearing. Instead, Mother	4
merely points to evidence presented that is contrary to the findings made by the	5
district court. [MIO 13, 16] To the extent that this contrary evidence was presented	6
to and weighed by the district court, as acknowledged by Mother, we will not	7
reweigh such evidence on appeal. See State ex rel. Children, Youth & Families Dep’t	8
v. Amanda H., 2007-NMCA-029, ¶ 19, 141 N.M. 299, 154 P.3d 674 (“We employ a	9
narrow standard of review and do not re[]weigh the evidence.”).	10
{4} 	Further, although Mother maintains that assignment to the general calendar is	11
warranted because the record proper is insufficient to evaluate the sufficiency of the	12
evidence, she does not point to any specific findings in the district court’s order that	13
she asserts were unsupported by the evidence. See State v. Sheldon, 1990-NMCA-	14
039, ¶ 5, 110 N.M. 28, 791 P.2d 479 (stating that reassignment to a non-summary	15
calendar is not required where it “would serve no purpose other than to allow	16
appellate counsel to pick through the record” for possible error). Mother has not	17
asserted any new facts, law, or argument that would otherwise persuade us that our	18
notice of proposed disposition was erroneous. See Hennessy v. Duryea, 1998-	19
NMCA-036, ¶ 24, 124 N.M. 754, 955 P.2d 683 (“Our courts have repeatedly held	20

4
that, in summary calendar cases, the burden is on the party opposing the proposed	1
disposition to clearly point out errors in fact or law.”); State v. Mondragon, 1988-	2
NMCA-027, ¶ 10, 107 N.M. 421, 759 P.2d 1003 (stating that a party responding to	3
a summary calendar notice must come forward and specifically point out errors of	4
law and fact, and the repetition of earlier arguments does not fulfill this requirement),	5
superseded by statute on other grounds as stated in State v. Harris, 2013-NMCA-	6
031, ¶ 3, 297 P.3d 374. We therefore refer Mother to our analysis therein.	7
{5} 	Lastly, insofar as Mother’s MIO does not respond to two of the issues raised	8
in the docketing statement and addressed in the notice of proposed disposition, those	9
issues are abandoned. See Taylor v. Van Winkle’s IGA Farmer’s Mkt., 1996-NMCA-	10
111, ¶ 5, 122 N.M. 486, 927 P.2d 41 (recognizing that issues raised in a docketing	11
statement, but not contested in a memorandum in opposition are abandoned).	12
{6} 	Accordingly, for the reasons stated in our notice of proposed disposition and	13
herein, we decline to place Mother’s case on the general calendar and summarily	14
affirm the district court’s order terminating Mother’s parental rights to Children.	15
{7} 	IT IS SO ORDERED.	16
______________________________	17
LINDA M. VANZI, Judge	18

1
WE CONCUR:
2
3 |M. MONICA ZAMORA, Judge
4 5
Megan P Duffy
MEGAN P. DUFFY, Junge
5