May 19, 2020- CYFD v. Jessica N., No. A-1-CA-38664

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-38664	6
JESSICA N.,	7
Respondent-Appellant,	8
and	9
HILARIO N.,	10
Respondent,	11
IN THE MATTER OF	12
TIMOTHY N.,	13
Child.	14
APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF CHAVES COUNTY	15
Kea W. Riggs, District Judge	16
Rebecca J. Liggett, Chief Children’s Court Attorney	17
Santa Fe, NM	18
Kelly P. O’Neill, Children’s Court Attorney	19
Albuquerque, NM	20
for Appellee	21
Susan C. Baker	22
El Prado, NM	23
for Appellant	24
Court of Appeals of New Mexico
Filed 5/19/2020 11:54 AM

2
JulieAnne Hufstedler Leonard, P.C.	1
JulieAnne Hufstedler Leonard	2
Capitan, NM	3
Guardian Ad Litem	4
MEMORANDUM OPINION	5
VANZI, Judge.	6
{1} 	Respondent Jessica N. (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, which we	9
have duly considered. Remaining unpersuaded, we affirm.	10
{2} 	In her memorandum in opposition, Mother maintains that the district court’s	11
determination that the causes and conditions of neglect were unlikely to be alleviated	12
in the foreseeable future is not supported by substantial evidence. [MIO 9] Mother	13
has not asserted any new facts, law, or argument that persuade us that our notice of	14
proposed disposition was erroneous. See Hennessy v. Duryea, 1998-NMCA-036,	15
¶ 24, 124 N.M. 754, 955 P.2d 683 (“Our courts have repeatedly held that, in	16
summary calendar cases, the burden is on the party opposing the proposed	17
disposition to clearly point out errors in fact or law.”); State v. Mondragon, 1988-	18
NMCA-027, ¶ 10, 107 N.M. 421, 759 P.2d 1003 (stating that a party responding to	19
a summary calendar notice must come forward and specifically point out errors of	20
law and fact, and the repetition of earlier arguments does not fulfill this requirement),	21

3
superseded by statute on other grounds as stated in State v. Harris, 2013-NMCA-	1
031, ¶ 3, 297 P.3d 374. Mother’s only argument is that there was evidence presented	2
demonstrating that Mother complied with her treatment plan for periods of time.	3
[MIO 11-12] However, we remind Mother that we do not reweigh the evidence on	4
appeal. See State ex rel. Children, Youth & Families Dep’t v. Amanda H., 2007-	5
NMCA-029, ¶ 19, 141 N.M. 299, 154 P.3d 674. We therefore refer Mother to the	6
analysis in our notice of proposed disposition.	7
{3} 	To the extent that Mother argues that assignment to the general calendar is	8
required in order “to adequately review her performance under the treatment plan[,]”	9
and “fully weigh the evidence [to] determine if termination was warranted[,]” we	10
note that reassignment to a non-summary calendar is not required where it “would	11
serve no purpose other than to allow appellate counsel to pick through the record”	12
for possible error. See State v. Sheldon, 1990-NMCA-039, ¶ 5, 110 N.M. 28, 791	13
P.2d 479. We decline to place Mother’s case on the general calendar when the sole	14
argument made in support thereof merely asks us to reweigh the evidence contrary	15
to our standard of review. See Amanda H., 2007-NMCA-029, ¶ 19.	16
{4} 	Accordingly, for the reasons stated in our notice of proposed disposition and	17
herein, we summarily affirm the district court’s order terminating Mother’s parental	18
rights to Child.	19
20

4
{5} 	IT IS SO ORDERED.	1
_________________________________	2
LINDA M. VANZI, Judge	3
WE CONCUR:	4
_________________________________	5
JULIE J. VARGAS, Judge	6
_________________________________	7
JACQUELINE R. MEDINA, Judge	8