New Mexico justices overturn child neglect findings in 2018 case

Oct. 22—The New Mexico Supreme Court clarified the definition of child neglect in an opinion published Thursday unanimously overturning lower court decisions finding a mother had neglected her son in 2018.

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

“Courts must be cautious to avoid finding neglect in every lapse in parental care or control and must focus on those instances or circumstances likely to have a serious or significant impact on a child’s health and safety,” Justice Julie Vargas wrote in the opinion. “Evidence that supports only ‘a vague inference of future harm’ does not rise to the level of neglect.”

Nancy Simmons, attorney for Heather S., said in an interview 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 dealing with poverty.

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

“I think CYFD tries its best, but they need to take stock of this opinion and think about what they can do to prevent the removal,” Simmons said. “Offer her some help.”

“This isn’t a rush job,” Simmons added. “You need to carefully consider what’s before the court and make a reasoned decision about whether it’s neglect.”

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

“The goal is to stem the high-risk issues a family faces in a timely manner, so they do not become more serious over time,” Skobinsky wrote.

With the opinion, the Supreme Court sent the case back to district court. Simmons noted her client did get her child back some time ago after completing a treatment plan.

CYFD’s removal of the child from his home stemmed from two…