State Ex Rel. CYFD v. Amity M.

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 Refer to Rule 12-405 NMRA for restrictions on the citation of unpublished decisions.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-40255

STATE OF NEW MEXICO ex rel.

CHILDREN, YOUTH & FAMILIES

DEPARTMENT,

Petitioner-Appellee, v.

AMITY M.,

Respondent-Appellant,

IN THE MATTER OF ALESIO R. and

ASPEN A.,

Children.

APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF MORA COUNTY

Abigail Aragon, District Judge

Children, Youth & Families Department

Mary McQueeny, Chief Children’s Court Attorney

Santa Fe, NM

Kelly P. O’Neill, Children’s Court Attorney

Albuquerque, NM for Appellee

Cravens Law, LLC

Richard H. Cravens, IV

Albuquerque, NM for Appellant

David Silva, Attorney at Law

David R. Silva

Las Vegas, NM Guardian Ad Litem

MEMORANDUM OPINION

ATTREP, Judge. {1} Respondent Amity M. (Mother) appeals from the district court’s judgment terminating her parental rights. [2 RP 340-42] In this Court’s notice of proposed disposition, we proposed summary affirmance. [CN 15] Mother filed a memorandum in opposition, which we have duly considered. Remaining unpersuaded, we affirm. {2} In her memorandum in opposition, Mother repeats the presentation of the issues and facts asserted and argued in Mother’s docketing statement. [MIO 1-4] Mother has not asserted any facts, law, or argument that persuade this Court that our notice of proposed disposition was erroneous. See Hennessy v. Duryea, 1998-NMCA-036, ¶ 24, 124 N.M. 754, 955 P.2d 683 (“Our courts have repeatedly held that, in summary calendar cases, the burden is on the party opposing the proposed disposition to clearly point out errors in fact or law.”); State v. Mondragon, 1988-NMCA-027, ¶ 10, 107 N.M. 421, 759 P.2d 1003 (stating that a party responding to a summary calendar notice must come forward and specifically point out errors of law and fact, and the repetition of earlier arguments does not fulfill this requirement), superseded by statute on other grounds as stated in State v. Harris, 2013-NMCA-031, ¶ 3, 297 P.3d 374. {3} Accordingly, for the reasons stated in our notice of proposed disposition and herein, we affirm the termination of Mother’s parental rights. {4} IT IS SO ORDERED.

JENNIFER L. ATTREP, Judge

WE CONCUR:

SHAMMARA H. HENDERSON, Judge

JANE B. YOHALEM, Judge