In the Matter of Grace H. v. Maurice H.

In the Matter of Grace H., 2014-NMSC-034 · Supreme Court of New Mexico · September 18, 2014 · No. 34,126

Summary

The New Mexico Supreme Court held that the statutory grounds for terminating parental rights under Section 32A-4-28 were ambiguous regarding when abandonment may be used as a basis for termination. It concluded that abandonment under Subsection (B)(1) applies when a parent is completely absent, while neglect by abandonment under Subsection (B)(2) applies when a parent is present and willing to participate meaningfully before termination. The Court reversed the termination of the father's parental rights and remanded for proceedings under the appropriate statutory framework.

Holdings

  1. Section 32A-4-28 is ambiguous concerning the application of its abandonment provisions. Subsection (B)(1) applies when a parent is absent before termination, while subsection (B)(2) applies when a parent is present and expresses a legitimate desire to take responsibility for the child before termination.
  2. Father's parental rights were improperly terminated under Section 32A-4-28(B)(1). Because Father appeared before termination and expressed a willingness to participate and assume responsibility, the termination had to proceed under subsection (B)(2), after reasonable efforts, assessment, and treatment.
  3. The termination order must be reversed and the case remanded for reconsideration under the court's interpretation of subsections (B)(1) and (B)(2), including assessments of Father and Child and reasonable efforts to address the alleged neglect.

Questions Presented

  1. Whether Section 32A-4-28 is ambiguous regarding when abandonment may support termination under subsection (B)(1) rather than as neglect under subsection (B)(2).
  2. Whether a parent who is present and expresses a legitimate desire to assume responsibility for the child before termination must have the termination adjudicated under Section 32A-4-28(B)(2), including reasonable efforts by the Department to assist reunification.
  3. Whether the district court improperly terminated Father's parental rights under Section 32A-4-28(B)(1) after the Department and court had proceeded as an abuse-and-neglect case involving a treatment plan.

Disposition

reversed_and_remanded

Cases Cited (19)

  • State v. Almanzar, 2014-NMSC-001, ¶ 15, 316 P.3d 183(followed)
  • Griego v. Oliver, 2014-NMSC-003, ¶¶ 20-21, 316 P.3d 865(followed)
  • State v. Smith, 2004-NMSC-032, ¶¶ 9-10, 136 N.M. 372, 98 P.3d 1022(followed)
  • State v. Rivera, 2004-NMSC-001, ¶ 13, 134 N.M. 768, 82 P.3d 939(followed)
  • State ex rel. Children, Youth and Families Dep’t v. Lance K., 2009-NMCA-054, ¶ 39, 146 N.M. 286, 209 P.3d 778(followed)
  • Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745, 753-54 (1982)(followed)
  • State ex rel. Children, Youth and Families Dep’t v. Mafin M., 2003-NMSC-015, ¶¶ 18, 20, 133 N.M. 827, 70 P.3d 1266(followed)
  • Roberts v. Staples, 1968-NMSC-109, ¶ 20, 79 N.M. 298, 442 P.2d 788(followed)
  • M.L.B. v. S.L.J., 519 U.S. 102, 118 (1996)(followed)
  • G.R.M. v. W.M.S., 618 S.W.2d 181, 184 (Ky. Ct. App. 1981)(persuasive)

Showing top 10 of 19.

Cited In (0)

No citing cases on record yet.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…