New Mexico judges overturn child neglect findings in 2018 case

Oct. 22: The New Mexico Supreme Court clarified the definition of child neglect in a unanimous opinion Thursday that overturned lower court decisions that found a mother had neglected her child in 2018.

Judges in the state’s 2nd Judicial District and state Court of Appeals had previously sided with the New Mexico Department of Children, Youth and Families in finding that Heather S. had neglected the his son However, the Supreme Court justices said in their ruling that the courts’ obligation when determining neglect is to consider whether a parent is providing what is essential to a child’s well-being. If the parents are not, the court’s role is also to determine whether this is due to the parents’ actions or lack thereof, not issues such as poverty.

“Courts must be careful to avoid finding negligence in every lapse of parental care or control and must focus on those cases or circumstances that may have a serious or significant impact on the health and safety of a child ,” Judge Julie Vargas wrote in the opinion. “Evidence supporting only ‘a vague inference of future harm’ does not rise to the level of negligence.”

Nancy Simmons, an attorney for Heather S., said in an interview that the ruling meant vindication for her client in a case that represented an instance in which CYFD removed a child instead of helping a mother deal with the poverty

According to the opinion, Heather S. also faced unresolved alleged domestic violence issues and challenges getting help for her son, who has severe attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder.

“I think CYFD is doing everything they can, but they need to take stock of that opinion and think about what they can do to prevent removal,” Simmons said. “Offer him some help.”

“This is not a rush job,” Simmons added. “You have to carefully consider what is before the court and make a reasoned decision as to whether it is negligence.”

CYFD spokesman Andrew Skobinsky said in an email that the department’s Family Services Division addresses community needs with a “robust suite of prevention and early intervention programs, including a multitude of comprehensive services to support the health and well-being of the family.”

“The goal is to stop the high-risk problems a family is facing in a timely manner so they don’t become more serious over time,” Skobinsky wrote.

With the ruling, the Supreme Court sent the case back to the district court. Simmons noted that his client regained his son some time ago after completing a treatment plan.

According to the ruling, CYFD’s removal of the child from the home stemmed from two incidents in 2018. Department workers were called to the home in September after a man, with whom Heather S. shared a daughter, allegedly “has been drowned and beaten (Heather S.)”. CYFD workers were cited a second time after police arrested the children’s nannies on outstanding warrants.

In November, CYFD documented safety issues at the home, including an exposed electrical outlet and clutter in every room that made it difficult to walk. The department’s investigator also observed multiple roaches, dirty dishes in the kitchen sink, black dots in the bathroom tub and a “noticeable but faint odor of urine” throughout the house.

According to the opinion, the child was not malnourished and had no injuries.

Still, CYFD took custody of the children in November 2018, citing safety concerns about the state of the home. Heather S.’s son was later placed in foster care. The district court found that the child was abandoned. Heather S. appealed, but the appeals court upheld the district court’s decision.

However, Supreme Court justices overturned the decision in part because they found that many of the district court’s findings were not supported by “substantial evidence.” For example, the resolution of the case occurred during two hearings in a three-month period, and during the second hearing, the judges said that the judge in the case summarized the previous hearing and got certain facts wrong.

“The record indicates that the district court either misinterpreted or did not accurately recall testimony related to alleged unsafe conditions in the home when it ordered Child’s removal,” Vargas wrote in the opinion.

The judges also said some of the evidence presented to the court to prove the risks inside the home was speculative.

For example, the opinion states that CYFD said a steak knife had been left on the kitchen table. But the judges noted that the children were asleep when it was discovered and there was no reason to believe they could have reached it.

The judges also noted that Heather S. worked quickly to resolve the issues identified by CYFD. On a return visit shortly after the November incident, a department investigator said the house was “pretty clean,” noting that he no longer saw any roaches.

Esteban Candelaria is a staff member of Report for America, a national service program that places journalists in local newsrooms. It covers child welfare and the state Department of Children, Youth and Families. Learn more about Report for America at reportforamerica.org.