September 20, 2019- CYFD v. Luanne S., No. A-1-CA-38047

Corrections to this opinion 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 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-38047	6
LUANNE S.,	7
Respondent-Appellant,	8
IN THE MATTER OF JOY B., JANISE B.,	9
JAMES B., and JASON B.,	10
Children.	11
APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF RIO ARRIBA COUNTY	12
Glenn T. Ellington, District Judge	13
Children, Youth & Families Department	14
Rebecca J. Liggett, Chief Children’s Court Attorney	15
Santa Fe, NM	16
Kelly P. O’Neill, Children’s Court Attorney	17
Albuquerque, NM	18
for Appellee	19
Susan C. Baker	20
El. Prado, NM	21
for Appellant	22
Court of Appeals of New Mexico
Filed 9/20/2019 3:04 PM

2
Frazier & Ramirez Law	1
Kelley Leigh Thurston	2
Albuquerque, NM	3
Guardian Ad Litem for James B.	4
Johnna L. Studebaker	5
Santa Fe, NM	6
Guardian Ad Litem for Janise B. and Joy B.	7
Dennis C. Quintana	8
Santa Cruz, NM	9
Guardian Ad Litem Jason B.	10
MEMORANDUM OPINION	11
HANISEE, Judge.	12
{1} 	Mother, Luanne S., appeals from the district court’s order terminating her	13
parental rights to her children, Joy B., Janise B., James B., and Jason B. (Children).	14
We issued a notice of proposed summary disposition proposing to affirm, and Mother	15
has responded with a timely memorandum in opposition. We have duly considered	16
Mother’s arguments, and we remain unpersuaded that our initial proposed disposition	17
was incorrect. We therefore affirm.	18
DISCUSSION	19
{2} 	Mother continues to challenge the sufficiency of the evidence to support	20
termination of her parental rights. In order to terminate Mother’s parental rights, the	21
Children, Youth & Families Department (CYFD ) was required to demonstrate that	22

3
Children were neglected, and that the causes and conditions of the neglect were	1
unlikely to change in the foreseeable future despite CYFD’s reasonable efforts to	2
assist Mother. See State ex rel. Children, Youth & Families Dep’t v. Vanessa C., 2000-	3
NMCA-025, ¶ 23, 128 N.M. 701, 997 P.2d 833; see also NMSA 1978, § 32A-4-28	4
(B)(2) (2005). “The standard of proof in an abuse or neglect adjudication is clear and	5
convincing evidence.” State ex rel Children Youth & Families Dep’t v. Amanda H.,	6
2007-NMCA-029, ¶ 19, 141 N.M. 299, 154 P.3d 674. Notwithstanding this	7
demanding standard of proof, we cannot reweigh the evidence or substitute our	8
judgment for that of the district court as to any factual matter. See In re Termination	9
of Parental Rights of Eventyr J., 1995-NMCA-087, ¶¶ 2-3, 120 N.M. 463, 902 P.2d	10
1066. Our standard of review is whether, viewing the evidence in the manner most	11
favorable to the decision below, the district court could properly determine that clear	12
and convincing evidence was introduced in support of the termination. Id.	13
{3} 	Mother argues that CYFD’s efforts to assist her in addressing her substance	14
abuse issues were insufficient. See State ex rel. Children, Youth & Families Dep’t v.	15
Athena H., 2006-NMCA-113, ¶ 9, 140 N.M. 390, 142 P.3d 978 (stating that CYFD	16
is required to “provide reasonable efforts to assist the parent to change the conditions	17
that gave rise to the neglect and abuse, and the district court must consider the results	18
of CYFD’s efforts”). Specifically, Mother argues that she was clearly not benefitting	19
from outpatient substance abuse treatment, and CYFD should have worked to enroll	20

4
her in an inpatient residential treatment program, in line with the recommendation	1
made in her psychological evaluation. [MIO 10-11]	2
{4} 	We begin by observing that CYFD is not required to do everything possible to	3
assist a parent, nor is it required to make efforts subject to conditions imposed by the	4
parent. This Court has recognized that “[w]hat constitutes reasonable efforts may vary	5
with a number of factors, such as the level of cooperation demonstrated by the parent	6
and the recalcitrance of the problems that render the parent unable to provide adequate	7
parenting.” 	State 	ex 	rel. 	Children, 	Youth 	& 	Families 	Dep’t 	v. 	Patricia 	H.,	8
2002-NMCA-061, ¶ 23, 132 N.M. 299, 47 P.3d 859.	9
{5} 	Mother’s psychological evaluation contains the following recommendation	10
from the evaluator, Dr. Christopher Alexander.	11
[Mother] should participate in intensive substance abuse counseling, to	12
include both individual and group modalities. Along the way, ongoing	13
drug testing will be needed. In the event [Mother] continues to test	14
positive for any illegal drug, she may require a referral for something	15
more intensive, perhaps inpatient treatment.	16
[RP 541]	17
{6} 	We first note that the reference to inpatient residential substance abuse	18
treatment was suggested as a possibility by Dr. Alexander, and was not made a	19
requirement of Mother’s treatment plan. Moreover, Mother’s participation in the	20
substance abuse aspects of her treatment plan was sporadic. The district court’s	21
findings indicate that CYFD referred Mother to substance abuse treatment and relapse	22

5
prevention 	treatment 	several 	times 	during 	the 	course 	of 	this 	case, 	but 	was	1
unsatisfactorily discharged from the various programs. [RP 1008] Further, Mother did	2
not show up for the majority of her scheduled UAs, Mother failed to sign release	3
forms to allow CYFD to make certain referrals, and Mother was not forthcoming	4
regarding her drug use. [RP 1009-1011, 1013]	5
{7} 	The record thus indicates that Mother’s lack of success with substance abuse	6
treatment was occasioned in part by her failure to meaningfully engage with the	7
services provided, not the inadequacy of the services to meet her particular needs. See	8
Patricia H., 2002-NMCA-061, ¶ 27 (“[The m]other may have had what she	9
considered to be good faith reasons for her refusal, but CYFD is only required to make	10
reasonable efforts, not efforts subject to conditions unilaterally imposed by the	11
parent.”). As Mother did not fully participate in the substance abuse treatment	12
provided, her argument that further treatment in the form of an inpatient residential	13
program would have resulted in a different outcome is speculative. Given Mother’s	14
lack of participation in several key aspects of her treatment plan, it appears that	15
additional efforts would be unlikely to promote success. See Eventyr J., 1995-NMCA-	16
087, ¶ 32 (stating that when CYFD has made reasonable efforts, further efforts are not	17
required).	18
{8} 	For these reasons, we affirm the district court’s determination that CYFD’s	19
efforts in this matter were reasonable. Patricia H., 2002-NMCA-061, ¶ 28 (observing	20

6
that on appeal, the question is not whether CYFD did everything possible, merely	1
whether it satisfied minimum legal requirements).	2
CONCLUSION	3
{9} 	For these reasons, we affirm the district court’s order affirming the termination	4
of Mother’s parental rights.	5
{10} 	IT IS SO ORDERED.	6
__________________________________	7
J. MILES HANISEE, Judge	8
WE CONCUR:	9
_________________________________	10
JULIE J. VARGAS, Judge	11
_________________________________	12
ZACHARY A. IVES, Judge	13