March 31, 2025- Children, Youth and Families Department v. Anthony D., No. A-1-CA-42076

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

NN

10

11

12

13

14

15

16
17

18
19
20
21
22

23

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

Opinion Number: Court of Appeals of New Mexico
ne Filed 3/31/2025 7:35 AM

Filing Date: March 31, 2025 Heyes

Stephanie Latimer Davis

No. A-1-CA-42076 Acting Chief Clerk
STATE OF NEW MEXICO, ex rel.
CHILDREN YOUTH AND FAMILIES
DEPARTMENT,

Petitioner-Appellee,
V.
ANTHONY D.,

Respondent-Appellant,
and
JADA M.,

Respondent,

IN THE MATTER OF ISAAC D., a Child.

APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF LEA COUNTY
Lee A. Kirksey, District Court Judge

Children, Youth & Families Department

Amanda M. Romero, Chief Children’s Court Attorney
Santa Fe, NM

K. Brandon Cline, Children’s Court Attorney
Albuquerque, NM

for Appellee

—

2

4

6

Susan C. Baker
E] Prado, NM

for Appellant

Laura K. Castillo
Hobbs, NM

Guardian Ad Litem

OPINION	1
YOHALEM, Judge.	2
{1} 	Respondent Anthony D. (Father)1 appeals the district court’s determination	3
that his infant son (Child) is a “neglected child,” pursuant to NMSA 1978, Section	4
32A-4-2(G)(2) (2023) of the Abuse and Neglect Act , a part of the Children’s Code.	5
See id. (describing a “neglected child” as a child without proper parental care and	6
control because of the faults of a parent, or the neglect or refusal of the parent, when	7
able to do so, to provide proper care and control). Father argues that the New Mexico	8
Children, Youth and Families Department (CYFD) failed to establish, by clear and	9
convincing evidence, that (1) a serious risk of harm to Child required his removal	10
into the custody of CYFD; or that (2) Father’s failure to remedy the cockroach	11
infestation in his home, which was the basis of CYFD’s claim that Father had	12
neglected Child, was attributable to “the faults or habits of [Father]” or to Father’s	13
“failure or refusal” to provide a safe home for Child, “when able to do so.” Id.	14
Following careful review of the record, we agree with Father that the district court’s	15
adjudication of Child as neglected, pursuant to Section 32A-4-2(G)(2), is not	16
supported by substantial evidence of a clear and convincing nature. We, therefore,	17
1Child’s mother, Jada M. (Mother), was also found to have neglected Child.
Briefing has not yet been completed on her appeal, No. A-1-CA-42079.

2
reverse 	the 	district 	court’s 	adjudication 	of 	neglect, 	and 	remand 	for 	further	1
proceedings consistent with this opinion.	2
BACKGROUND	3
The Evidence at the Adjudicatory Hearing	4
{2} 	The adjudicatory hearing in the district court was held on May 16, 2024. The	5
following evidence was introduced into the record by CYFD through the testimony	6
of CYFD investigator Christina Jones.2
7
{3} 	Child was born on December 31, 2023. CYFD initiated an investigation,	8
which led to the filing of a petition for neglect and abuse against Parents, based on	9
a report from the hospital that Mother had tested positive for drug use. Ms. Jones	10
met with Parents at the hospital in Lubbock, Texas on January 2, 2024. Father	11
expressed concern about the readiness of their home for Child, telling Ms. Jones that	12
the bathroom plumbing was not working. Mother told Ms. Jones that she had not left	13
the hospital because Parents did not have a car seat for Child or transportation from	14
the hospital in Texas, where she had been transferred for Child’s birth, to their home	15
in New Mexico.	16
2The only witness other than Ms. Jones at the adjudicatory hearing testified
about the results of the drug tests administered to Mother and Father (collectively,
Parents) in the hospital following Child’s birth. Because the district court found this
testimony to be irrelevant to the adjudication of neglect, we do not review it here.

3
{4} 	CYFD, with Parents’ participation and agreement, developed a safety plan.	1
Child would stay with Parents in their home and Father’s great-aunt would live with	2
them as a safety monitor to ensure Child’s care was adequate. There would be no	3
drugs in the home. Ms. Jones would visit the home once a week to check on Child’s	4
care. At the end of twenty-one days, CYFD would conduct a family-centered	5
meeting (FCM) with Parents and other family members to decide on next steps.	6
{5} 	The completed safety plan was presented to Parents and was signed by them	7
on January 8, 2024. Ms. Jones described the physical condition of the home at that	8
time as “clean and clear.” She testified that she did not “see any cockroaches running	9
around,” and she was not concerned about the condition of the home. The bathroom	10
plumbing, however, was not working (as Father had reported to her at the hospital),	11
and Parents were using a bathroom at a convenience store down the street, and a	12
truck stop facility for showers. Ms. Jones did not testify as to whether Parents were	13
required to fix the plumbing as part of the first safety plan.	14
{6} 	The FCM was originally scheduled for January 17, 2024. Both Parents missed	15
the meeting. After speaking to Parents by phone, Ms. Jones rescheduled the FCM	16
for January 24, 2024. Ms. Jones visited the home on January 22 in advance of the	17
rescheduled FCM. Ms. Jones described seeing cockroaches on the floor, the walls,	18
the cabinets, the bed, the legs of Child’s changing table, and on the table where	19
Child’s bottles and formula were kept. There were even cockroaches on the great-	20

4
aunt’s body and on the clothes that she was wearing. Ms. Jones emphasized that she	1
had not seen any cockroaches at her prior visits.	2
{7} 	Ms. Jones described seeing some plugged in electrical wires around the	3
baseboards of the kitchen and living room and a broken window covered with paper	4
and plastic. Additionally, the kitchen cabinets were broken and there was an empty	5
space in the kitchen where a washing machine was likely intended to be placed.	6
Instead, there was a bucket.	7
{8} 	On January 24, 2024, the day of the FCM, CYFD presented a second safety	8
plan, requiring Parents to address the cockroach infestation, the plumbing issue, and	9
generally clean up the home within five days in order for Child to return home. There	10
is no evidence in the record showing any offer of help from CYFD to address the	11
condition of the home. Parents voluntarily placed Child with Father’s niece (Niece),	12
who lived nearby, and Parents visited Child at her home under Niece’s supervision.	13
Like the earlier safety plan, this plan was entirely voluntary. No court order required	14
it.	15
{9} 	At the end of the five days, on January 29, Ms. Jones visited the home to check	16
on Parents’ progress. Child was at Niece’s home, was not present in Parents’ home	17
at the time of this visit, and had not been present in Parents’ home during the five	18
days preceding the visit. Ms. Jones testified that she saw an open ditch with	19
plumbing not yet buried outside the home, and noted that the bathroom plumbing	20

5
inside was now working. She testified, however, that the cockroaches were worse.	1
According to Ms. Jones’s testimony, the cockroaches “just started swimming out”	2
of the ceiling. Father was attempting to kill them with roach spray. The fumes from	3
the roach spray made it difficult to breathe and drove her out of the house. Ms. Jones	4
reported that the cardboard box bed that the Texas hospital had given Parents was	5
now gone and replaced with a broken playpen, which, when picked up, “roaches	6
would come flying out.” On this visit, Ms. Jones took photographs3 showing the	7
cockroaches, trash, and dirt she described.	8
{10} 	As already noted, Child remained safely at Niece’s house throughout this	9
period, was not in Parents’ home at the time of the inspection, and was not exposed	10
to the roach spray. Ms. Jones reported that she had no concerns about the quality of	11
care that Child was receiving in Niece’s home or about Child’s safety. She testified	12
that she evaluated Niece’s home and found it appropriate for Child, and believed	13
that Niece could be trusted to not allow Child back in Parents’ home without	14
permission from CYFD. Niece informed Parents and CYFD that she was willing to	15
continue to care for Child indefinitely. Ms. Jones testified that she was convinced	16
Child was safe and well cared for with Niece. When pressed on her reasons for taking	17
Child into custody, Ms. Jones stated that Father had not formalized Child’s	18
3 The photographs that Ms. Jones describes in her testimony, although
admitted into evidence, were not part of the record provided to us. We, therefore,
rely solely on her testimony for the state of the home.

6
placement with Niece during the five days the second safety plan was in place. There	1
was no testimony that CYFD had asked Father to do this or that Father failed or	2
refused to sign such documents.	3
{11} 	Nonetheless, however, Ms. Jones called law enforcement to take Child into	4
CYFD custody, claiming that she had no choice under CYFD policy. Child was	5
placed in nonrelative foster care on January 29, 2024, until a custody hearing could	6
be held. CYFD filed a petition for abuse and neglect and for an ex parte custody	7
order on February 1, 2024. An ex parte custody order was entered on February 1,	8
2024. The district court found probable cause that Child was neglected by Parents	9
on February 9 (Father stipulated to probable cause). The adjudicatory hearing, which	10
is the focus of this appeal, was held on May 16, 2024.4
11
The District Court’s Findings and Conclusions	12
{12} 	Relying 	on 	Ms. 	Jones’s 	testimony, 	the 	district 	court 	found 	clear 	and	13
convincing evidence of neglect under Section 32A-4-2(G)(2). The district court	14
found that that the condition of Parents’ home left Child without proper parental care	15
and control, and posed a serious risk of harm to Child; that Father’s failure to put in	16
place a power of attorney or guardianship with Niece during the second five-day	17
4In his brief, Father discusses the evidence at the custody hearing, claiming it
was insufficient to establish probable cause to retain Child in State custody. Father
however, elects to proceed solely with his appeal of the adjudicatory judgment.
Therefore, we consider only Father’s contention that CYFD did not present
sufficient evidence at the adjudicatory hearing to establish that Child was neglected.

7
safety plan left Child at serious risk of harm; and that Father was at fault because the	1
actions he took to remedy the condition of the home and his failure to put a	2
guardianship in place showed an intentional or negligent disregard of Child’s well-	3
being. Father appealed.	4
DISCUSSION	5
I. 	New Mexico’s Legal Standard for Neglect Under Section 32A-4-2(G)(2)	6
{13} 	Section 32A-4-2(G)(2) defines a “neglected child” as a child	7
who 	is 	without 	proper 	parental 	care 	and 	control 	or 	subsistence,	8
education, medical or other care or control necessary for the child’s	9
well-being because of the faults or habits of the child’s parent, guardian	10
or custodian or the failure or refusal of the parent, guardian or	11
custodian, when able to do so, to provide them.	12
{14} 	Our Supreme Court has recently construed Section 32A-4-2(G)(2) to require	13
“that two conditions be satisfied before a child meets the definition of a neglected	14
child.” State ex rel. Child., Youth & Fams. Dep’t v. Heather S., 2025-NMSC-002,	15
¶ 29, 563 P.3d 821. “The first [condition] addresses the circumstances and condition	16
of the child, mandating that the child must be ‘without proper parental care and	17
control necessary for the child’s well-being.’” 	Id. 	(quoting § 32A-4-2(G)(2)	18
(omission omitted)). “The second [condition] addresses the culpability of the parent,	19
requiring that the child’s lack of proper parental care and control must be ‘because	20
of the faults or habits’ of child’s parent or the ‘failure or refusal’ of child’s parent to	21
provide the necessary ‘care or control.’” Id. (quoting § 32A-4-2(G)(2)). Absent	22

8
sufficient proof by clear and convincing evidence of both of these elements, a child	1
is not neglected. Id.	2
{15} 	In determining legislative intent as to the meaning of the phrase “necessary	3
for the child’s well-being,” § 32A-4-2(G)(2), our Supreme Court in Heather S. relied	4
in part on the Legislature’s statement of policies and purposes it sought to achieve	5
in the Children’s Code. Section 32A-1-3(A) explains that, under the provisions of	6
the Children’s Code, “[a] child’s health and safety shall be the paramount concern,”	7
along with the preservation of the family whenever possible. Further, Section 32A-	8
1-3(A) notes that “[p]ermanent separation of a child from [that] child’s family” could	9
be justified “when the child . . . has suffered permanent or severe injury or repeated	10
abuse.”	11
{16} 	Based in part on these statements of legislative purpose, our Supreme Court	12
concluded that “the Legislature intended that to find a child to be without proper	13
parental care and control necessary for the child’s well-being such that the child must	14
be removed from the family, the child must be subjected to circumstances that create	15
a serious risk to the child’s mental or physical health and safety.” Heather S., 2025-	16
NMSC-002, ¶ 35. “A serious risk is one that is likely to result in important or	17
dangerous consequences for the child.” Id.	18
{17} 	We are reminded by Heather S. that, under these standards, courts must be	19
“cautious to avoid finding neglect in every lapse in parental care or control and must	20

9
focus on those instances or circumstances likely to have a serious or significant	1
impact on a child’s health and safety.” Id. Moreover, “[a]bsent clear and convincing	2
evidence of a serious risk to [the c]hild, . . . removal and foster care should not be	3
CYFD’s first course of action and [the c]hild cannot be adjudicated neglected.” Id.	4
¶ 68	5
{18} 	If the district court determines that a child is “without proper parental care and	6
control . . . necessary for the child’s well-being,” the next determination the district	7
court must make is whether the lack of proper parental care and control is “because	8
of the faults or habits of the child’s parent . . . or the failure or refusal of the parent	9
. . . , when able to do so, to provide them.” Section 32A-4-2(G)(2) (emphasis added);	10
see Heather S., 2025-NMSC-002, ¶ 29 (describing the second condition the courts	11
must consider). In this provision, the Legislature “take[s] into account differing	12
abilities of parents to provide resources necessary for the well-being of their	13
children.” Heather S., 2025-NMSC-002, ¶ 37. In determining neglect under Section	14
32A-4-2(G)(2), the focus “should be on the acts or omissions of the parents in their	15
caretaking function and not on apparent shortcomings of a given parent due to any	16
unfavorable status, poverty being the most common.” Heather S., 2025-NMSC-002,	17
¶ 37 (text only) (citation omitted). We consider “whether it is the parent’s acts or	18
omissions, rather than poverty, or some other unfavorable status that are the cause	19
of the parent’s shortcomings.” Id. ¶ 38. As this Court has held, to make a finding of	20

10
neglect under Section 32A-4-2(G)(2), “[t]he district court must have been presented	1
with clear and convincing evidence of [a parent’s] culpability through intentional or	2
negligent disregard of [a c]hild’s well-being and proper needs.” State ex rel. Child.,	3
Youth & Fams. Dep’t v. Amanda H., 2007-NMCA-029, ¶ 21, 141 N.M. 299, 154	4
P.3d 674.	5
{19} 	With these principles in mind, we look to whether substantial evidence	6
supports a finding of neglect in this case.	7
II. 	The District Court’s Adjudication of Neglect Is Not Supported by	8
Substantial Evidence of a Clear and Convincing Nature	9
{20} 	Father challenges both the district court’s finding (1) that the condition of	10
Parents’ home left Child without proper parental care and control, and (2) that Father	11
was at fault because the actions he took to remedy the condition of the home showed	12
an intentional or negligent disregard of Child’s well-being and needs. Specifically,	13
Father argues that Parents’ voluntary placement of Child in the home of a relative—	14
Niece—who agreed to provide care to Child in a safe and healthy setting, was a	15
proper exercise of parental care and control, protecting Child from any serious risk	16
of harm while Father addressed the cockroach infestation so Child could return	17
home.	18
{21} 	Father argues as well that undisputed circumstantial evidence in the record	19
establishes Father’s poverty, and that CYFD failed to provide clear and convincing	20
evidence that Father’s failure to remedy the cockroach infestation during the five	21

11
days he was given by CYFD was attributable to Father’s intentional or negligent acts	1
or omissions, rather than to poverty. After a careful review of the evidence, we agree	2
with Father that CYFD failed to establish by the required substantial clear and	3
convincing evidence either of the two elements necessary to support an adjudication	4
of neglect under Section 32A-4-2(G)(2).	5
{22} 	“We employ a narrow standard of review and do not re[]weigh the evidence.”	6
Amanda H., 2007-NMCA-029, ¶ 19. “Rather, we review to determine whether,	7
viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prevailing party, the	8
fact[-]finder could properly determine that the clear and convincing evidence	9
standard was met.” Id. “For evidence to be clear and convincing, it must instantly	10
tilt the scales in the affirmative when weighed against the evidence in opposition and	11
the fact[-]finder’s mind is left with an abiding conviction that the evidence is true.”	12
Id. (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).	13
A. 	The District Court’s Finding That Father Left Child Without Proper	14
Parental Care and Control Necessary for Child’s Well-Being is Not	15
Supported by Substantial Evidence	16
{23} 	In concluding that Child was neglected as defined by Section 32A-4-2(G)(2),	17
the district court made the following findings of fact:	18
Mother told CYFD that she and Father did not have a car seat for	19
[Child]. When CYFD visited the home Mother, Father, and [Child]	20
were living in, the home was extremely dirty and roaches were	21
everywhere including in the broken play[]pen the parents had for	22
[Child] to sleep in, on the changing table while [Child] was being	23
changed, and near the formula for [Child] to eat. CYFD worker	24

12
described swarms of roaches and Father spraying roach spray in the air	1
so much that they had to step outside [of] the home. During the two	2
safety plans that were attempted, Mother and Father did not take steps	3
such as [p]ower of [a]ttorney or guardianship to formalize [Child]’s	4
placement with relatives. CYFD could not simply walk away from	5
[Child] when there were no formal arrangements in place for his	6
immediate or long[-]term future and safety.	7
{24} 	We note at the outset that some of the district court’s findings confuse the	8
events and condition of the home at the time of each visit from Ms. Jones. The	9
district court conflated the visit when Child was residing in the home with the visit	10
when Child was not residing there. Contrary to the district court’s findings, the	11
evidence establishes that Child was not present in the home when Father sprayed	12
roach spray in the air “so much that they had to step outside [of] the home.” The	13
evidence established that the incident where roach spray was used occurred when	14
Child was safely at Niece’s house and not in the home. Similarly, there is no	15
evidence that Child ever slept in the playpen that the district court described as	16
broken and infested with cockroaches. The record showed that during the five days	17
Child was living in Niece’s house, Parents replaced a cardboard bed brought home	18
from the hospital with the playpen.	19
{25} 	Importantly, Father’s argument is not that the home was a safe and healthy	20
place for Child during the cockroach infestation. Father claims instead that the	21
undisputed evidence shows that he exercised proper parental care and control to keep	22
Child safe by placing Child with Niece. First, the evidence shows that the cockroach	23

13
infestation occurred suddenly, shortly before Ms. Jones’s January 22 visit; Ms. Jones	1
testified that she had not seen any cockroaches on her prior visits. Ms. Jones testified	2
that the home was clean and clear of cockroaches, and that she had no concerns about	3
Child’s safety on January 8 when she visited to have Parents sign the first safety	4
plan. She also reported that she was conducting weekly check-ins with Parents	5
between January 8 and the FCM, apparently without identifying any health or safety	6
concerns in the home. But when Ms. Jones visited on January 22, before the	7
rescheduled January 24 FCM, she reported that the home was severely infested with	8
cockroaches. Although this infestation could have an adverse impact on an infant,	9
CYFD presented no evidence about either the cause of the sudden overwhelming	10
cockroach infestation Ms. Jones described, or whether Parents had taken any actions	11
to address the infestation before Ms. Jones visited on January 22.	12
{26} 	Critically, after the January 22 visit, Parents agreed to the second safety plan,	13
placing 	Child 	with 	Niece 	while 	they 	attempted 	to 	remediate 	the 	cockroach	14
infestation and to fix the plumbing in the bathroom. Ms. Jones testified that the	15
placement of Child with Niece by Parents was voluntary; no court order was in place	16
at that time.	17
{27} 	At the end of five days, Ms. Jones returned to the home on January 29 to find	18
the plumbing fixed, and the common areas of the home straightened up and cleaned.	19
Other private bedroom areas, however, remained cluttered and dirty, according to	20

14
Ms. Jones, and, most important to the district court’s finding of neglect, the	1
cockroach infestation, if anything, was worse. As clarified above, it was during this	2
visit on January 29 that Father sprayed roach spray in an attempt to kill some of the	3
cockroaches. There was no evidence that CYFD offered Parents any help in	4
addressing the severe cockroach infestation Ms. Jones described to the district court.	5
{28} 	Ms. Jones testified that she had no concerns about Child’s safety at Niece’s	6
home, and that Niece was doing everything necessary to care for Child. Further,	7
Niece was willing to continue caring for Child “indefinitely” while Father fixed the	8
home for Child’s return.	9
{29} 	As previously noted, Father does not challenge the sufficiency of the evidence	10
to support the district court’s finding that the condition of the home was not safe for	11
Child. Father instead argues that his placement of Child with Niece, an appropriate	12
relative, who CYFD admits was providing a safe living space and adequate parental	13
care for Child, demonstrated proper parental care and control, and removed any	14
serious risk of harm to Child from the condition of Parents’ home.	15
{30} 	Specifically, Father disputes the district court’s conclusion that Parents’	16
voluntary placement of Child with Niece was not adequate to protect Child because	17
“[Parents] did not take steps such as [p]ower of [a]ttorney or guardianship to	18
formalize [Child’s] placement with relatives.” We agree with Father that evidence	19

15
that a parent left a child in the care of others without a formal guardianship or power	1
of attorney is not alone sufficient to establish neglect.	2
{31} 	In In re Guardianship of Ashleigh R., 2002-NMCA-103, ¶ 20, 132 N.M. 772,	3
55 P.3d 984, this Court held that “as long as the parent continues to insure that the	4
caretaker is properly providing for the children’s needs,” leaving a child in the care	5
of others is not necessarily neglect. We reasoned that “[a] contrary rule would have	6
the unfortunate effect of discouraging parents from seeking assistance when they	7
find themselves unable to fully discharge the responsibilities of parenthood.” Id.	8
{32} 	If a child is in the legal custody of CYFD by court order, formal legal	9
requirements apply to CYFD’s placement of a child in the home of a relative. But	10
when the child is not in CYFD custody, it is not neglect for a parent to place a child	11
temporarily in the care of a relative without establishing a formal legal relationship.	12
The record appears to show that Parents were visiting Child in Niece’s home, and	13
thus were discharging both their responsibility to maintain their relationship with	14
Child and to make sure that Child was adequately cared for in Niece’s home. Parents	15
were not prohibited from visiting Child or assisting with Child’s care, and CYFD	16
presented no evidence that Child was returned to the cockroach-infested family	17
home. Finally, there is no evidence in the record that Parents were asked by CYFD	18
to sign a power of attorney or enter into a guardianship, and that they refused to do	19
so.	20

16
{33} 	In sum, we do not find that the district court’s finding of a failure by Father to	1
provide proper parental care and control, such that Child was put at serious risk of	2
harm, is supported by substantial clear and convincing evidence.	3
B. 	CYFD Failed to Introduce Evidence Showing That Any Lack of Proper	4
Parental Care and Control Was Because of the Faults and Habits of	5
Father	6
{34} 	As discussed previously, the second condition necessary for an adjudication	7
of neglect under Section 32A-4-2(G)(2) is clear and convincing evidence of parental	8
culpability. See Heather S., 2025-NMSC-002, ¶ 29. “The focus of this culpability	9
element should be on the acts or omissions of the parents in their caretaking function	10
and not on apparent shortcomings of a given parent due to any unfavorable status.”	11
Id. ¶ 37 (text only) (citation omitted). “[T]he court must have been presented with	12
clear and convincing evidence of [the parents’] culpability through intentional or	13
negligent disregard of [the child’s] well-being and proper needs.” State ex rel. Child.,	14
Youth & Fams. Dep’t v. Michelle B., 2001-NMCA-071, ¶ 17, 130 N.M. 781, 32 P.3d	15
790.	16
{35} 	Father argues that his actions in response to the cockroach infestation were	17
reasonable and that CYFD failed to prove that his failure to eliminate the infestation	18
within the five days he was given by the second safety plan was not the result of his	19
indigent status rather than any intentional or negligent conduct. CYFD argues in	20

17
response that “Father provided no evidence at the adjudicatory hearing that the	1
condition of the home was caused by poverty.”	2
{36} 	CYFD’s argument misstates the burden of proof at an adjudicatory hearing.	3
Our Supreme Court has construed Section 32A-4-2(G)(2) to create a presumption	4
“that it is in a child’s best interest to remain with the child’s parent unless the state	5
provides clear and convincing evidence to support each specific element of Section	6
32A-4-2(G)(2).” Heather S., 2025-NMSC-002, ¶ 38 (internal quotation marks	7
omitted).	8
{37} 	Although no explicit evidence of Father’s poverty was presented at the	9
adjudicatory hearing, poverty can be inferred from circumstantial evidence in the	10
record. See, e.g., State v. Chavez, 2009-NMSC-035, ¶¶ 34-35, 146 N.M. 434,	11
211 P.3d 891 (relying on the record to conclude conditions within the home	12
“evidence poverty”); Heather S., 2025-NMSC-002, ¶ 70 (relying on circumstantial	13
evidence in the record to determine that the mother was impacted by poverty). The	14
record at the adjudicatory hearing clearly shows that Parents were impacted by	15
poverty. Father told Ms. Jones that he was concerned that the bathroom plumbing	16
was not working when they first spoke at the hospital, and that Parents were using	17
the bathroom facilities at a nearby convenience store and truck stop. Parents did not	18
have a car seat for Child, or transportation to return home from the Texas hospital	19
where Mother had been transferred for Child’s birth. Ms. Jones reported that there	20

18
was a place for a washing machine in the home, but the washing machine had	1
apparently been removed and a bucket took its place. Further, only paper and plastic	2
covered one of the broken exterior windows of the home. This is adequate	3
circumstantial evidence of poverty. The evidence in the record, although establishing	4
that Father was impacted by poverty, does not show that Father either acted	5
unreasonably in trying to get rid of the cockroaches with roach spray or that he had	6
the financial ability to take more effective action.	7
{38} 	We note that there is no evidence showing any effort by CYFD to assist Father	8
in improving the condition of the home so that removal of Child into CYFD custody	9
could be avoided, something that is required even if Father was not impoverished.	10
Cf. Heather S., 2025-NMSC-002, ¶ 64 (explaining CYFD’s duty to provide in-home	11
services regardless of the parents’ income or status). The law and regulations	12
governing CYFD require “reasonable efforts to maintain the family unit and prevent	13
the removal of a child from their home, as long as the child’s safety is assured.”	14
8.10.3.16(A) NMAC; § 32A-4-21(B)(5). There is no evidence that CYFD offered	15
any assistance to Father in remedying the cockroach infestation or even inquired	16
about whether such assistance was needed.5
17
5We note that child protection agencies outside New Mexico routinely assist
struggling families with pest removal services. See, e.g., In re Interest of A.A., 2023
WL 6159438 at *4 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2023) (providing testimony that child protective
services “assisted the family in paying for pest removal”) (unpublished table
decision); In re Interest of S.B., 597 S.W.3d 571, 584 (Tex. App. 2020) (“The

19
CONCLUSION	1
{39} 	For the reasons stated, we reverse the district court’s adjudication of neglect	2
as to Father and remand to the district court for further proceedings. See, e.g., State	3
ex rel. Child., Youth & Fams. Dep’t v. Benjamin O., 2007-NMCA-070, ¶¶ 38-39,	4
141 N.M. 692, 160 P.3d 601 (providing that, following a determination that the	5
parent was wrongfully adjudicated to have neglected or abused the child, “the court	6
and CYFD must . . . seriously consider whether reunification is possible” and that	7
CYFD is not necessarily “foreclosed from seeking a termination of [the parents’	8
parental rights”).	9
{40} 	IT IS SO ORDERED.	10
_____________________________	11
JANE B. YOHALEM, Judge	12
WE CONCUR:	13
___________________________________	14
ZACHARY A. IVES, Judge	15
___________________________________	16
SHAMMARA H. HENDERSON, Judge	17
[Children’s] Department paid for an exterminator.”); In re C.P., 2025 IL. App. (4th)
241207-U, ¶ 6 (order) (stating that after an inspection of the home, the department
determined “an exterminator was needed to address the cockroach infestation[,]” and
“obtained funding for the exterminator”).