April 2, 2020- CYFD v. Teresa P.-P., No. A-1-CA-38517

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-38517	6
TERESA P.-P.,	7
Respondent-Appellant,	8
and	9
AMBROSE P.,	10
Respondent,	11
IN THE MATTER ELIJAH P. AND	12
EMMETT P.,	13
Children.	14
APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF TORRANCE COUNTY	15
Mercedes C. Murphy, District Judge	16
Children, Youth & Families Department	17
Rebecca J. Liggett, Chief Children’s Court Attorney	18
Santa Fe, NM	19
Kelly P. O’Neill, Children’s Court Attorney	20
Albuquerque, NM	21
for Appellee	22
Court of Appeals of New Mexico
Filed 4/2/2020 10:44 AM

2
Susan C. Baker	1
El Prado, NM	2
for Appellant	3
The Law Office of Shasta N. Inman, LLC	4
Shasta N. Inman	5
Albuquerque, NM	6
Guardian Ad Litem	7
MEMORANDUM OPINION	8
VANZI, Judge.	9
{1} 	Respondent Teresa P.-P. (Mother) appeals from the district court’s judgment	10
terminating her parental rights. In this Court’s notice of proposed disposition, we	11
proposed to summarily affirm. Mother filed a memorandum in opposition, which we	12
have duly considered. Remaining unpersuaded, we affirm.	13
{2} 	In her memorandum in opposition, Mother contends that there was not clear	14
and convincing evidence to support the district court’s determination that the	15
Children, Youth and Families Department (the Department) made reasonable efforts	16
to assist Mother. [MIO 12] Mother also maintains that placement of her case on the	17
general calendar is required because, without the full audio transcript of the	18
proceedings, she argues there is no viable way to discern the sufficiency of the	19
evidence to support the termination of her parental rights. [MIO 12]	20

3
{3} 	Specifically, 	Mother 	contends 	that 	“the 	Department 	failed 	to 	provide	1
reasonable efforts to treat her childhood trauma and domestic violence history,	2
which likely led to substance abuse and mental health issues.” [MIO 9] However, as	3
explained in this Court’s notice of proposed disposition, the Department provided	4
several referrals to service providers for Mother to address mental health issues, and	5
Mother failed to avail herself of these opportunities. [CN 6] To the extent that	6
Mother argues the Department was required to provide her with an “inpatient	7
treatment program, or at a minimum, intensive outpatient services” in order to have	8
made reasonable efforts, we note that “[the Department] is only required to make	9
reasonable efforts, not efforts subject to conditions unilaterally imposed by the	10
parent.” State ex rel. Children, Youth & Families Dep’t v. Patricia H., 2002-NMCA-	11
061, ¶ 27, 132 N.M. 299, 47 P.3d 859. Additionally, though Mother contends in her	12
memorandum in opposition that evidence was presented establishing that she had	13
difficulty attending some treatment due to the provider’s distance from her residence	14
[MIO 8, 15], as noted in this Court’s proposed disposition, there was testimony from	15
at least one treatment provider that they were willing to travel to Mother’s county of	16
residence in order to facilitate treatment. [CN 6; see also 3 RP 726-27] To the extent	17
that such testimony was presented, the district court properly exercised its discretion	18
in weighing the conflicting evidence, and we do not reweigh the evidence on appeal.	19
See State ex rel. Children, Youth & Families Dep’t v. Amanda H., 2007-NMCA-029,	20

4
¶ 19, 141 N.M. 299, 154 P.3d 674 (“We employ a narrow standard of review and do	1
not 	re[]weigh 	the 	evidence.”). 	Under 	these 	circumstances, we 	conclude that	2
substantial evidence supports the district court’s determination that the Department	3
made reasonable efforts to assist Mother. See Patricia H., 2002-NMCA-061, ¶ 28	4
(“[An appellate court’s] job is not to determine whether [the Department] did	5
everything possible; our task is limited by our statutory scope of review to whether	6
[the Department] complied with the minimum required under law.”).	7
{4} 	Further, although Mother maintains that assignment to the general calendar is	8
warranted in order to obtain a “complete record of the audio transcript of these	9
proceedings[,]”[MIO 12] she fails to point to any specific findings in the district	10
court’s order that are unsupported by the evidence, instead maintaining that “[i]t is	11
unclear from the record of these proceedings whether the Department actually	12
provided such services as part of its case plan.” [MIO13-14] See State v. Sheldon,	13
1990-NMCA-039, ¶ 5, 110 N.M. 28, 791 P.2d 479 (stating that reassignment to a	14
nonsummary calendar is not required where it “would serve no purpose other than	15
to allow appellate counsel to pick through the record” for possible error).	16
{5} 	Lastly, Mother’s docketing statement appeared to raise the additional issue of	17
whether there was sufficient evidence presented at the TPR hearing that the causes	18
and conditions of neglect were unlikely to change in the foreseeable future. See	19
NMSA 1978, § 32A-4-28(B)(2) (2005). In our notice of proposed disposition, we	20

5
proposed to conclude that the evidence was sufficient to support the district court’s	1
determination on this issue. [CN 5] Mother’s memorandum in opposition does not	2
respond to our proposed disposition on this issue, and thus we deem it abandoned.	3
See Taylor v. Van Winkle’s IGA Farmer’s Mkt., 1996-NMCA-111, ¶ 5, 122 N.M.	4
486, 927 P.2d 41 (recognizing that issues raised in a docketing statement but not	5
contested in a memorandum in opposition are abandoned).	6
{6} 	Accordingly, for the reasons stated in our notice of proposed disposition and	7
herein, we summarily affirm the district court’s order terminating Mother’s parental	8
rights to Children.	9
{7} 	IT IS SO ORDERED.	10
______________________________	11
LINDA M. VANZI, Judge	12
WE CONCUR:	13
______________________________	14
JENNIFER L. ATTREP, Judge	15
______________________________	16
KRISTINA BOGARDUS, Judge	17