August 12, 2020- CYFD v. Randall T., No. A-1-CA-38036

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	1
STATE OF NEW MEXICO ex rel.	2
CHILDREN, YOUTH & FAMILIES	3
DEPARTMENT,	4
Petitioner-Appellee,	5
v. 	No. A-1-CA-38036	6
RANDALL T.,	7
Respondent-Appellant,	8
and	9
JANISE A. and STACEY B.,	10
Respondents.	11
IN THE MATTER OF E.C.,	12
T.C., K.C., B.A., and C.B.,	13
Children.	14
APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF CHAVES COUNTY	15
Kea W. Riggs, District Judge	16
Children, Youth & Families Department	17
Rebecca J. Liggett, Chief Children’s Court Attorney	18
Robert Retherford, Children’s Court Attorney	19
Santa Fe, NM	20
for Appellee	21
Court of Appeals of New Mexico
Filed 8/12/2020 11:27 AM

2
Roybal-Mack & Cordova, P.C.	1
Antonia Roybal-Mack	2
Albuquerque, NM	3
for Appellant	4
JulieAnne Hufstedler Leonard, PC	5
JulieAnne Hufstedler Leonard	6
Capitan, NM	7
Guardian Ad Litem	8
MEMORANDUM OPINION	9
VARGAS, Judge.	10
{1} 	Randall T. (Father) appeals the district court’s termination of his parental	11
rights to his two daughters. (collectively, Children). Finding no error by the district	12
court, we affirm.	13
BACKGROUND	14
{2} 	The Children, Youth and Families Department (the Department) filed its	15
original abuse and neglect petition 1 against Children’s mother regarding older	16
daughter on August 22, 2017, after it received reports that older daughter was being	17
physically neglected, with inadequate food, shelter, and supervision. The affidavit	18
filed in support of the petition reported that when Department investigators visited	19
Children’s house, the home was covered in old, moldy clothes and garbage, and	20
1 The original abuse and/or neglect petition and amended petition name other
children and respondents who are omitted because they are neither relevant to nor a
part of Father’s appeal.

3
smelled of urine and animal feces. Additionally, older daughter and some of	1
mother’s 	other children 	were found under the supervision 	of their maternal	2
grandmother who stated that she had not seen their mother in a few days, that their	3
mother had left with younger daughter, and grandmother had been unable to enroll	4
the children in school because she was not their legal guardian. The report noted that	5
older daughter and the other children slept on mattresses on the floor that were	6
covered in feces and urine stains, and the only food in the home was a couple bags	7
of chips, some tortillas, and eggs.	8
{3} 	During their initial visit, investigators spoke with Father, who is mother’s	9
half-brother, and at the time, was identified only as Children’s maternal uncle. Father	10
advised investigators that he lived in the home with Children. The report noted that	11
“[t]here are some questions about paternity, the Department will continue to	12
investigate.” Finding that older daughter and mother’s other children were in	13
immediate danger and that there was no parent or guardian able to provide adequate	14
care and supervision, the district court awarded custody to the Department following	15
a hearing.	16
{4} 	Several weeks after the Department’s initial investigation, it took custody of	17
younger daughter after mother appeared at the Department’s offices with younger	18
daughter and reported that she was homeless and had no money or transportation.	19
Older daughter and younger daughter each tested positive for methamphetamines	20

4
when they were taken into custody by the Department. The Department filed a	1
petition alleging abuse and neglect against mother and Father related to younger	2
daughter on September 28, 2017, again identifying Father as younger daughter’s	3
uncle. 	The 	district 	court 	also 	awarded 	custody 	of 	younger 	daughter 	to 	the	4
Department following a hearing, similarly finding that younger daughter was in	5
immediate danger and that there was no parent or guardian able to provide adequate	6
care and supervision. On October 18, 2017, trial counsel entered her appearance on	7
behalf of Father. On October 24, 2017, Father was apparently added as a respondent	8
in the abuse and neglect proceedings related to older daughter. The district court	9
subsequently consolidated the abuse and neglect proceedings involving Children.	10
{5} 	On December 12, 2017, the district court ordered paternity testing to	11
determine whether Father was the biological father of Children. The testing revealed	12
that Father was Children’s biological maternal uncle and father and on January 9,	13
2018, the Department filed an amended abuse and neglect petition, alleging Father	14
had abused and neglected Children by his action or inaction, resulting in physical,	15
emotional, or psychological abuse, leaving Children without proper parental care	16
and control or subsistence, education, medical or other care necessary for their well-	17
being.	18
{6} 	Father failed to appear at his adjudication and disposition hearing held on	19
March 13, 2018, at which time the district court found that Children had suffered	20

5
physical, emotional, or psychological abuse and that Father did not or could not	1
provide proper subsistence, education, medical or other care or control necessary for	2
Children’s well-being. The district court adopted the treatment plan proposed by the	3
Department requiring Father to, among other things, maintain contact with the	4
Department and his attorney, participate in scheduled visits with Children, maintain	5
stable 	housing 	and 	stable 	employment, 	provide 	proof 	of 	income, 	undergo	6
assessments for substance abuse issues and mental health issues and follow all	7
recommendations, maintain his sobriety and undergo random drug screens, and	8
attend and participate in therapy to learn and understand the effects of his incestuous	9
relationship with Children’s mother on Children and to set appropriate boundaries.	10
{7} 	On August 22, 2018, the Department filed its motion to terminate Father’s	11
parental rights, alleging that Father had not complied with the treatment plan and	12
that the causes and conditions that brought Children into the Department’s care had	13
not been alleviated. The termination of parental rights (TPR) hearing was held on	14
October 12, 2018, and following trial, the district court granted the Department’s	15
motion terminating Father’s parental rights. This appeal followed.	16
DISCUSSION	17
{8} 	On appeal, Father raises four issues: (1) whether the district court erred when	18
it concluded that the Department proved by clear and convincing evidence that the	19
Department made reasonable efforts to assist Father; (2) whether the district court	20

6
erred when it concluded that the Department proved by clear and convincing	1
evidence that the conditions and causes of Children’s neglect were unlikely to	2
change within the foreseeable future; (3) whether the district court erred when it	3
concluded that the termination of Father’s parental rights was in Children’s best	4
interest; and (4) whether Father was denied due process.	5
I. 	Standard of Review	6
{9} 	“The standard of proof in cases involving the termination of parental rights is	7
clear and convincing evidence.” State ex rel. Children, Youth & Families Dep’t v.	8
Vanessa C., 2000-NMCA-025, ¶ 24, 128 N.M. 701, 997 P.2d 833. “Clear and	9
convincing evidence is . . . evidence that instantly tilts the scales in the affirmative	10
when weighed against the evidence in opposition and the fact[-]finder’s mind is left	11
with an abiding conviction that the evidence is true.” State ex rel. Children, Youth	12
& Families Dep’t v. Lance K., 2009-NMCA-054, ¶ 16, 146 N.M. 286, 209 P.3d 778	13
(alteration, internal quotation marks, and citation omitted). “We will uphold the	14
district court’s judgment if, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the	15
judgment, [the district court] could properly determine that the clear and convincing	16
standard was met.” State ex rel. Children, Youth & Families Dep’t v. Hector C.,	17
2008-NMCA-079, ¶ 11, 144 N.M. 222, 185 P.3d 1072 (internal quotation marks and	18
citation omitted). Thus, the question before us is “whether the [district] court’s	19
conclusion, when viewed in the light most favorable to the decision below, was	20

7
supported by substantial evidence, not whether the [district] court could have	1
reached a different conclusion.” State ex rel. Children, Youth & Families Dep’t v.	2
Patricia H., 2002-NMCA-061, ¶ 31, 132 N.M. 299, 47 P.3d 859. Finally, this Court	3
does not “assess the credibility of the witnesses, deferring instead to the conclusions	4
of the [district court].” Vanessa C., 2000-NMCA-025, ¶ 24.	5
II. 	The District Court Properly Concluded That the Department Proved by	6
Clear and Convincing Evidence That It Made Reasonable Efforts to	7
Assist Father	8
{10} 	NMSA 1978, Section 32A-4-28(B)(2) (2005) requires that the Department	9
demonstrate that it made reasonable efforts to assist the parent to adjust the	10
conditions and causes that rendered him unable to properly care for an abused or	11
neglected child. When reviewing the reasonableness of the Department’s efforts we	12
consider the totality of the circumstances. State ex rel. Children, Youth & Families	13
Dep’t v. Keon H., 2018-NMSC-033, ¶ 38, 421 P.3d 814. The Department’s “efforts	14
should be directed to assist the parent in remedying the conditions and causes of	15
neglect and abuse.” Id. ¶ 41. “Efforts to assist a parent may include individual,	16
group, and family counseling, substance abuse treatment, mental health services,	17
transportation, childcare, and other therapeutic services.” Id. (internal quotation	18
marks and citation omitted). “[W]hat constitutes reasonable efforts may vary with a	19
number of factors, such as the level of cooperation demonstrated by the parent and	20
the recalcitrance of the problems that render the parent unable to provide adequate	21

8
parenting.” Id. (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). “[O]ur job is not to	1
determine whether [the Department] did everything possible; our task is limited by	2
our statutory scope of review to whether [the Department] complied with the	3
minimum required under law.” Patricia H., 2002-NMCA-061, ¶ 28.	4
{11} 	Here, the district court ruled that the Department proved by clear and	5
convincing evidence that “[it] had made reasonable, diligent and ongoing efforts	6
under 	the 	circumstances 	to 	assist 	[F]ather 	in 	addressing 	the 	conditions 	that	7
render[ed] him unable to properly care for [Children.]” In reaching its conclusion,	8
the district court found that the Department “created a treatment plan for Father to	9
address the causes and conditions that brought . . . [C]hildren into custody,” the	10
Department “made repeated and ongoing efforts throughout the case to maintain	11
contact with Father and engage Father in the treatment plan[,]” and the Department	12
“made available, or attempted to make available, services and support designed to	13
correct Father’s inability or unwillingness to provide proper parental care or control	14
for Children.”	15
{12} 	At the hearing, the Department offered the testimony of Jennifer Lewis, the	16
Department’s permanency planning worker (PPW) assigned to the case. Lewis	17
explained that she created a treatment plan for Father to help address the issues that	18
brought Children into the Department’s care, but that she had difficulty reviewing	19
or discussing the treatment plan with Father because he very seldom had a phone	20

9
and she did not know where he was. Lewis attempted to reach out to Father through	1
the court appointed special advocate (CASA) when Father came to visit Children,	2
asking CASA volunteers to give him messages to contact her or deliver referrals for	3
drug testing. She also maintained communication with Father’s attorney in attempts	4
to contact him. Finally, Lewis explained that Father would sometimes come into the	5
Department’s offices to ask for help. She would schedule appointments for him, but	6
he would not return at the appointed time. On the occasions she attempted to review	7
the treatment plan with him, he got angry or explosive and she was not able to review	8
the entire plan with Father until August 2018, when his attorney was present and the	9
three of them went over it together.	10
{13} 	Lewis testified that the key issues for Father resulting in the abuse and neglect	11
of Children were housing instability, substance abuse issues, mental health, domestic	12
violence, and the incestuous relationship between Father and mother. To implement	13
the treatment plan and address the issues that brought the Children into custody,	14
Lewis twice referred Father to La Familia Mental Health for drug and alcohol	15
assessments and psychological evaluations and scheduled two appointments for a	16
mental health assessment for Father. Lewis made appointments for Father to discuss	17
and arrange for outpatient substance abuse treatment where he could also receive	18
housing assistance. She made referrals for domestic violence and mental health	19
counseling, including referrals to group counseling and parenting classes, as well as	20

10
referrals for counseling to address relationship boundaries and his incestuous	1
relationship with mother. Lewis also attempted to assist Father in securing his birth	2
certificate, so he could obtain identification to seek employment and housing and	3
offered him monthly bus passes that would allow Father to attend his visitations and	4
counseling appointments. Lewis arranged supervised visitation with the Children,	5
first at the Department, and then at the CASA offices, and included Father in	6
activities outside of visitation, including the Department’s fall festival, Christmas	7
party, and May water event. In addition to Lewis, Lori Chitwood and her husband,	8
CASA volunteers, assisted Father with visitations and attempted to help Father	9
obtain his birth certificate.	10
{14} 	Father argues that the Department’s failures to make reasonable efforts to	11
assist him were five-fold. Father contends: (1) Lewis was difficult for Father to	12
contact; (2) the Department made no efforts to assist Father to find employment	13
beyond helping Father obtain a birth certificate; (3) the Department made little effort	14
to assist Father to find housing or to address Father’s drug dependency, beyond	15
limited referrals; (4) the filing of the termination of parental rights was premature	16
because it occurred only five months after the abuse and neglect finding; and (5) the	17
Department failed to assist Father in scheduling psychological evaluations and in	18
addressing his mental health needs.	19

11
{15} 	We find Father’s claims meritless. While Father contends Lewis was difficult	1
to contact, the evidence supports the district court’s conclusion that Father failed to	2
maintain contact with the Department, interfering with its ability to assist him in	3
rectifying the conditions that caused Children to be brought into Department	4
custody. As Lewis explained, Father did not have a phone, she did not know where	5
to reach him, and she was forced to resort to sending messages through CASA	6
volunteers and Father’s attorney. Although Father testified that when he called	7
Lewis, he usually got her voicemail, he did not leave Lewis messages. Finally, Lewis	8
explained, and Father conceded, that Father would sometimes come into the	9
Department’s offices to ask for help and Lewis would schedule appointments for	10
him, but he would not return at the appointed time. While Father testified that he	11
sometimes had difficulty reaching Lewis and that she was “too busy” to help him,	12
our standard of review does not permit us to reweigh the evidence and requires that	13
we “consider the evidence in the light most favorable to the prevailing party and	14
disregard any inferences and evidence to the contrary.” State ex rel. Children, Youth	15
& Families Dep’t v. Mercer-Smith, 2015-NMCA-093, ¶ 29, 356 P.3d 26 (internal	16
quotation marks and citation omitted), overruled on other grounds, 2019-NMSC-	17
005, 434 P.3d 930. The district court’s conclusion that Father failed to maintain	18
consistent contact with the Department is supported by clear and convincing	19
evidence and Father’s failure to maintain contact with the Department served as an	20

12
impediment to Father’s ability to take advantage of the services it offered to him to	1
address the reasons for Children’s abuse and neglect.	2
{16} 	With regard to Father’s claim that the Department failed to address his drug	3
dependency, psychological, and mental health needs beyond limited referrals, we	4
note that Father failed to cooperate in any of the efforts made by the Department in	5
those regards. Father failed to participate in the mandatory drug testing required by	6
the Department. He failed to attend appointments to discuss his substance abuse	7
issues. Father failed to take advantage of the referral to La Familia until the	8
Department made a second referral in August 2018, at which point he attended two	9
group counseling classes, but did not take part in any of the required assessments.	10
Lewis also scheduled two mental health evaluations for Father. He failed to attend	11
the first appointment. On the day of the second appointment, Father came to the	12
Department to talk about visitation and his birth certificate, but had apparently	13
forgotten about the appointment for his mental health evaluation. He nonetheless	14
met with the doctor for about twenty minutes at which point the doctor ended the	15
appointment, though the record is unclear as to why. In light of Father’s failure to	16
cooperate or participate in the services offered by the Department, we cannot agree	17
that its efforts to address Father’s drug dependency, psychological, and mental	18
health needs were not reasonable. See Patricia H., 2002-NMCA-061, ¶ 23 (noting	19
that reasonable efforts may vary with a number of factors, including “the level of	20

13
cooperation demonstrated by the parent and the recalcitrance of the problems that	1
render the parent unable to provide adequate parenting”); State ex rel. Children,	2
Youth & Families Dep’t v. Tammy S., 1999-NMCA-009, ¶ 15, 126 664, 974 P.2d	3
158 (holding that “[the f]ather’s transience, failure to communicate, and lack of	4
cooperation rendered the [d]epartment’s efforts sufficient”).	5
{17} 	Father 	also 	alleges 	that 	the 	Department’s 	efforts 	to 	assist 	him 	with	6
employment and housing were not reasonable. The record indicates that Father did	7
not have any identification, without which he was unable to secure employment.	8
Both Ms. Lewis, the PPW, and Ms. Chitwood of CASA, attempted to assist Father	9
in obtaining a copy of his birth certificate so that he could obtain identification.	10
Father, however, failed to follow through with the necessary steps to obtain his birth	11
certificate. Until Father made arrangements to obtain his identification, it is unclear	12
what more the Department could do to assist Father with regard to employment and	13
housing.	14
{18} 	Father also claims that “given Father’s methamphetamine use, and the	15
evidence 	of 	his 	recent 	engagement 	and 	progress 	with 	his 	treatment, 	[the	16
Department’s] motion to sever his rights only five months after his adjudicatory	17
hearing was premature.” Father ignores that, while he was not adjudicated until	18
March 2018, he was involved in the proceedings since at least October 18, 2017,	19
when his trial counsel entered her appearance on behalf of Father in response to the	20

14
Department’s abuse and neglect petition regarding younger daughter. In January	1
2018 the Department referred Father for mental health, substance abuse, and	2
domestic violence assessments, none of which Father pursued. And even after Father	3
was adjudicated to have abused and neglected Children in March 2018, he did	4
nothing in the five months that followed the adjudication with the exception of	5
attending some scheduled visitation. He did not keep in contact with the Department	6
and did not attend scheduled appointments, he did not go for required drug testing,	7
he did not make arrangements for any of the required assessments or resulting	8
treatment, he did not take steps to obtain his birth certificate so he could pursue	9
employment and housing. While he finally reviewed his treatment plan with the	10
Department and attended a couple of counseling sessions in the month before the	11
TPR hearing, we cannot agree that the Department’s actions were premature. In light	12
of Father’s “transience, failure to communicate, and lack of cooperation” during the	13
pendency of the proceedings, we conclude that the Department’s efforts were	14
sufficient. Id. ¶ 15.	15
III. 	The District Court Properly Concluded That the Department Proved by	16
Clear and Convincing Evidence That the Conditions and Causes of	17
Children’s Neglect Were Unlikely to Change	18
{19} 	Having concluded that the district court did not err in finding that the	19
Department made reasonable efforts to assist Father, we now turn to Father’s claim	20
that the district court erred in finding that the conditions and causes of Children’s	21

15
neglect were unlikely to change in the foreseeable future. See § 32A-4-28(B)(2)	1
(requiring that the district court find by clear and convincing evidence that “the	2
conditions and causes of the neglect and abuse are unlikely to change in the	3
foreseeable future, despite the reasonable efforts of [the Department] to assist the	4
parent”). “We have interpreted the term ‘foreseeable future’ to refer to corrective	5
change within a reasonably definite time or within the near future.” Patricia H.,	6
2002-NMCA-061, ¶ 34. (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).	7
{20} 	The district court ruled that the Department proved by clear and convincing	8
evidence that “Father has not alleviated the causes and conditions that brought	9
[Children] into custody and it is not reasonable to believe that he will do so in the	10
foreseeable future[.]” The district court also found that Children came into the	11
Department’s custody due to unsafe conditions of the home, Father’s inability to	12
meet Children’s basic needs, Father’s substance abuse issues and drug exposure to	13
Children, the on-going incestuous relationship between Father and Children’s	14
mother, and domestic violence and mental health issues. The district court found that	15
Father failed to address those issues in his treatment plan because he failed to	16
maintain contact or attend scheduled appointments with the Department, failed to	17
maintain sobriety and attend scheduled drug screenings, failed to attend scheduled	18
mental health and drug and alcohol assessments, and failed to establish a safe and	19
stable household, obtain employment, and attend all scheduled visitations. The	20

16
district court found that Father had “clearly and repeatedly demonstrated his	1
fundamental unwillingness to utilize [the Department’s] services and support by	2
intentionally making himself unavailable to [the Department], by failing to accept	3
the assistance offered by [the Department] and by failing to work on or complete his	4
treatment plan[,]” and “ha[d] made no efforts to address the causes and conditions	5
that brought . . . Children into custody.”	6
{21} 	Ms. 	Lewis 	testified 	that 	while 	she 	made 	many 	of 	the 	referrals 	and	7
appointments for Father discussed above to address the causes and conditions of	8
Children’s neglect, the success of such efforts were limited because he missed	9
scheduled appointments, failed to maintain contact, and when he did attend, was	10
often emotional and explosive. Ms. Lewis testified that throughout the process,	11
Father continued to be homeless, with no evidence that he had made any effort to	12
obtain stable and appropriate housing, continued to abuse methamphetamines, made	13
no effort to address mental health or substance abuse concerns, did not pursue any	14
domestic violence counseling to address his anger issues or relationship counseling	15
to 	address 	his 	incestuous 	relationship, 	and 	did 	not 	take 	any 	action 	on 	the	16
Department’s efforts to help Father obtain his birth certificate or to obtain stable	17
employment. Ms. Lewis expressed concerns that while Father did demonstrate some	18
healthy parenting skills and attended most of visitations scheduled with Children,	19
there were many times that Father would become angry and volatile in front of	20

17
Children and become angry at the Department staff. Ms. Lewis concluded that Father	1
had not addressed any of the causes and conditions that brought Children into the	2
Department’s custody, that all of the causes and conditions still exist, and that Father	3
could not reasonable address those causes and conditions in the near future.	4
{22} 	The Department also offered the testimony of Joe Vanderme, who conducted	5
Father’s drug screenings. Mr. Vanderme testified that Father tested positive for	6
methamphetamines on two tests and failed to attend any other scheduled tests or	7
refused to complete tests from September 2018 onward. Indeed, when asked by the	8
judge at the TPR hearing whether Father would pass a drug test, Father answered,	9
“No.”	10
{23} 	Ms. Chitwood also testified that she was concerned that Father was still living	11
with Children’s mother, and that she saw, on numerous occasions, signs that Father	12
and Children’s mother had been engaged in arguments in front of Children that left	13
Father with bleeding scratches on his face, arms, and neck. Additionally, Ms.	14
Chitwood testified that during numerous visits with Children, Father became	15
emotional and explosive, causing Children to become upset, and further expressed	16
concerns that Father was stalking Children.	17
{24} 	Father argues that the district court did not consider that Father had begun	18
engaging in treatment goals by attending recovery group meetings, speaking with	19
the clinical social worker, attending parenting classes and visiting Children through	20

18
CASA, when the Department filed the motion to terminate Father’s parental rights.	1
In light of the long list of Father’s failures to comply with the terms of his treatment	2
plan, and the scant evidence of his recent engagement with the treatment plan, we	3
cannot conclude that the district court erred. “We consider the evidence in the light	4
most favorable to the prevailing party and disregard any inferences and evidence to	5
the contrary.” Mercer-Smith, 2015-NMCA-093, ¶ 29 (internal quotation marks and	6
citation omitted). Given these considerations, including the testimony and exhibits,	7
and disregarding all evidence and inferences to the contrary, we hold that there is	8
clear and convincing evidence to support the district court’s conclusion that the	9
conditions and causes of Children’s abuse and neglect were unlikely to change in	10
the foreseeable future.	11
IV. 	The District Court Properly Concluded That the Termination of Father’s	12
Parental Rights Was in Children’s Best Interest	13
{25} 	Citing to the Domestic Affairs Code, rather than the Children’s Code, Father	14
argues that the district court erred in finding that the termination of his parental rights	15
would be in Children’s best interest, claiming that “the sole witness who testified as	16
to [Children’s] best interests was Ms. Lewis” who “was not qualified as an expert to	17
give that opinion” and the testimony of other witnesses does not support such a	18
finding.	19
{26} 	Initially, we note that the record does not support any reliance by the district	20
court on Ms. Lewis’s testimony that she thought termination of Father’s parental	21

19
rights was in Children’s best interests. Instead, the district court entered extensive	1
findings of fact detailing Children’s abuse and neglect, the efforts made by the	2
Department to assist Father, and Father’s failure to take the steps necessary to	3
remedy those conditions of abuse and neglect.	4
{27} 	Turning to Father’s argument that we should consider factors from the	5
Domestic Affairs Code in our analysis of Father’s parental rights, we note that Father	6
has provided us with no authority to support his claim that those factors should be	7
applied to TPR proceedings, see Curry v. Great Nw. Ins. Co., 2014-NMCA-031,	8
¶ 28, 320 P.3d 482 (“Where a party cites no authority to support an argument, we	9
assume no such authority exists.”), and we are not persuaded that it would be	10
appropriate to do so. While the Domestic Affairs Code permits courts to consider	11
factors such as the wishes of both parents and children in determining the best	12
interest of the child in divorce and child custody proceedings, see NMSA 1978,	13
Section 40-4-9 (1977), those wishes, while not irrelevant in proceedings to terminate	14
parental rights, must be subordinate to factors intended to address the protection of	15
the child from the abuse and neglect that precipitated the TPR proceedings, such as	16
whether “the conditions and causes of the neglect and abuse are unlikely to change	17
in the foreseeable future.” Section 32A-4-28(B)(2). In State ex rel. Children, Youth	18
& Families Dep’t v. Raymond D., 2017-NMCA-067, ¶ 16, 404 P.3d 15, this Court	19
explained that under the circumstances of that case, as is the case here, “proof of [the	20

20
c]hild’s best interests hinges on resolution of factual questions, namely: (1) whether	1
[the f]ather would remedy the conditions of neglect quickly enough in the future to	2
meet [the c]hild’s needs; and (2) the related question of whether [the f]ather should	3
have been allowed more time to attempt to remedy the causes and conditions of	4
neglect.” Here, the district court answered both questions in the negative, finding	5
that “Father has not alleviated the causes and conditions that brought [Children] into	6
custody and it is not reasonable to believe that he will do so in the foreseeable	7
future[.]” As explained above, given the extensive testimony concerning Father’s	8
failure to maintain contact with the Department, as well as his failure to make efforts,	9
beyond his visitation of Children and attendance at a couple of group counseling	10
sessions to address the causes and conditions of Children’s abuse and neglect, we	11
see no error in the district court’s conclusion that the termination of Father’s parental	12
rights was in Children’s mental and emotional best interests.	13
V. 	We Decline to Review Father’s Unpreserved Due Process Claim	14
{28} 	Lastly, Father argues that his due process rights were violated when his	15
parental rights were terminated despite 	the Department’s refusal to assign a new	16
PPW to Father’s case, allow additional time for Father to comply with his treatment	17
plan, or reschedule mental or psychological evaluations. Rule 12-321 NMRA	18
requires that issues and errors be preserved before we will review them. See Rule	19
12-321(A) (“To preserve an issue for review, it must appear that a ruling or decision	20

21
by the trial court was fairly invoked.”). In this case, Father concedes that his due	1
process argument was not raised below but asks this Court to exercise its discretion	2
authorized by Rule 12-321(B)(2) to review the argument because it touches on “his	3
fundamental right of care, custody and control of Children.” See Rule 12-321(B)(2)	4
(allowing an “appellate court, in its discretion [to] consider[] issues . . . raised for	5
the first time on appeal . . . involving (a) general public interest; (b) plain error; (c)	6
fundamental error; or (d) fundamental rights of a party”). We decline to do so	7
because Father fails to direct us to anything in the record to indicate that he requested	8
the process he now claims was denied to him. Father has failed to direct us to	9
anything in the record to support his claim that the Department refused his request	10
to assign a new PPW and our review has not uncovered any such request. Similarly,	11
Father has failed to point to anything in the record to indicate that he requested	12
additional time or that he requested that his evaluations be rescheduled. “We will	13
not search the record for facts, arguments, and rulings in order to support generalized	14
arguments.” Muse v. Muse, 2009-NMCA-003, ¶ 72, 145 N.M. 451, 200 P.3d 104.	15
Because Father failed to preserve his due process argument below, see State v. Leon,	16
2013-NMCA-011, ¶ 33, 292 P.3d 493 (holding that “[w]e generally do not consider	17
issues on appeal that are not preserved below” (internal quotation marks and citation	18
omitted)), or point us to the location in the record that would allow us to review it	19
under Rule 12-321(B)(2), we decline to address it.	20

22
CONCLUSION	1
{29} 	We affirm.	2
{30} 	IT IS SO ORDERED.	3
______________________________	4
JULIE J. VARGAS, Judge	5
WE CONCUR:	6
_______________________________	7
JENNIFER L. ATTREP, Judge	8
________________________________________	9
KRISTINA BOGARDUS, Judge	10