New Mexico Court of Appeals, 2022

State ex rel. CYFD v. Jennifer K.

State ex rel. CYFD v. Jennifer K.
New Mexico Court of Appeals · Decided July 13, 2022 · JENNIFER L. ATTREP; JACQUELINE R. MEDINA; JANE B. YOHALEM

State ex rel. CYFD v. Jennifer K.

Opinion

This decision of the New Mexico Court of Appeals was not selected for publication in the New Mexico Appellate Reports. Refer to Rule 12-405 NMRA for restrictions on the citation of unpublished decisions. Electronic decisions may contain computer- generated errors or other deviations from the official version filed by the Court of Appeals.

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO No. A-1-CA-39954 STATE OF NEW MEXICO ex rel., CHILDREN, YOUTH & FAMILIES DEPARTMENT, Petitioner-Appellee, v. JENNIFER K., Respondent-Appellant, IN THE MATTER OF ALEXIS K., Child.

APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF BERNALILLO COUNTY Alma C. Roberson, District Judge Mary McQueeney, Chief Children’s Court Attorney Robert Retherford, Children’s Court Attorney Santa Fe, NM for Appellee The Law Office of Nancy L. Simmons, P.C.

Nancy L. Simmons Albuquerque, NM for Appellant New Mexico Family Law PC Amanda Ann Aragon Albuquerque, NM Guardian Ad Litem MEMORANDUM OPINION ATTREP, Judge. {1} Mother appeals the termination of her parental rights to a minor child. This Court assigned this appeal to our general calendar, instructing the parties to brief an issue involving potential ineffective assistance of counsel. In its answer brief, the Children Youth & Families Department (the Department) conceded that Mother was denied due process and asked that this Court reverse the judgment entered below and remand for the purpose of conducting a new trial, thereby mooting the remaining issues raised in this appeal. The parties have since filed a joint motion asking that this matter be remanded for a new trial. Having reviewed the parties’ briefing and the record on appeal, we agree that the due process violation conceded by the Department requires reversal and moots the remaining issues raised on appeal. As a result, we conclude that the parties’ joint motion should be granted. {2} Accordingly, the judgment entered below is reversed, and this matter is remanded for a new trial. {3} IT IS SO ORDERED.

JENNIFER L. ATTREP, Judge WE CONCUR: JACQUELINE R. MEDINA, Judge JANE B. YOHALEM, Judge

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.