A. Prior to holding a dispositional hearing, the court shall direct that a predisposition study and report be submitted in writing to the court by the department.
B. The predisposition study required pursuant to Subsection A of this section shall contain the following information:
(1) a statement of the specific reasons for intervention by the department or for placing the child in the department’s custody and a statement of the parent’s ability to care for the child in the parent’s home without causing harm to the child;
(2) a statement of how an intervention plan is designed to achieve placement of the child in the least restrictive setting available, consistent with the best interests and special needs of the child, including a statement of the likely harm the child may suffer as a result of being removed from the parent’s home, including emotional harm that may result due to separation from the child’s parents, and a statement of how the intervention plan is designed to place the child in close proximity to the parent’s home without causing harm to the child due to separation from parents, siblings or any other person who may significantly affect the child’s best interest;
(3) the wishes of the child as to the child’s custodian;
(4) a statement of the efforts the department has made to identify and locate all grandparents and other relatives and to conduct home studies on any appropriate relative expressing an interest in providing care for the child, and a statement as to whether the child has a family member who, subsequent to study by the department, is determined to be qualified to care for the child;
(5) a description of services offered to the child, the child’s family and the child’s foster care family and a summary of reasonable efforts made to prevent removal of the child from the child’s family or reasonable efforts made to reunite the child with the child’s family;
(6) a description of the home or facility in which the child is placed and the appropriateness of the child’s placement;
(7) the results of any diagnostic examination or evaluation ordered at the custody hearing;
(8) a statement of the child’s medical and educational background;
(9) if the child is an Indian child, whether the placement preferences set forth in the federal Indian Child Welfare Act of 1978 or the placement preferences of the child’s Indian tribe were followed and whether the child’s case plan provides for maintaining the child’s cultural ties;
(10) a case plan that sets forth steps to ensure that the child’s physical, medical, psychological and educational needs are met and that sets forth services to be provided to the child and the child’s parents to facilitate permanent placement of the child in the parent’s home;
(11) for children sixteen years of age and older, a plan for developing the specific skills the child requires for successful transition into independent living as an adult, regardless of whether the child is returned to the child’s parent’s home;
(12) a case plan that sets forth steps to ensure that the child’s educational needs are met and, for a child fourteen years of age or older, a case plan that specifically sets forth the child’s educational and post-secondary goals; and
(13) a description of the child’s foster care placement and whether it is appropriate in terms of the educational setting and proximity to the school the child was enrolled in at the time of the placement, including plans for travel for the child to remain in the school in which the child was enrolled at the time of placement, if reasonable and in the child’s best interest.
C. A copy of the predisposition report shall be provided by the department to counsel for all parties five days before the dispositional hearing.
D. If the child is an adjudicated abused child, any temporary custody orders shall remain in effect until the court has received and considered the predispositional study at the dispositional hearing.
HISTORY:
1978 32A-4-21, enacted by Laws 1993, ch. 77, § 115; 1997, ch. 34, § 5; 2009, ch. 239, § 41; 2016, ch. 54, § 5.
Amendment Notes.
The 2009 amendment, effective July 1, 2009, added (B)(12) and (B)(13); and made related and stylistic changes.
The 2016 amendment, effective May 18, 2016, added “a statement of the efforts the department has made to identify and locate all grandparents and other relatives and to conduct home studies on any appropriate relative expressing an interest in providing care for the child, and a statement as to” at the beginning of B(4); substituted “child's case plan” for “child's treatment plan” in B(9); substituted “a case plan” for “a treatment plan” at the beginning of B(10); deleted “and” at the end of B(11); and substituted “a case plan” for “a treatment plan” twice in B(12).
Applicability.
Laws 2009, ch. 239, § 71 makes the provisions of this act applicable to all children who, on July 1, 2009, are on release or are otherwise eligible to be placed on release as if the Juvenile Public Safety Advisory Board Act had been in effect at the time they were placed on release or became eligible to be released.
Notes to Decisions
Requirements.
Trial court properly terminated the parental rights of a mother, although predisposition studies and reports were not made prior to a dispositional hearing as required by former 32-1-32.1 NMSA 1978 (32A-4-21 NMSA 1978), and although the trial court did not include a treatment plan in its neglect judgment as required by former 32-1-34C NMSA 1978 (32A-2-19 NMSA 1978), because former 40-7-4B(3) NMSA 1978 (32A-4-28 NMSA 1978) did not require a prior adjudication of neglect; any alleged defects in that prior proceeding did not affect the later termination; the record revealed sufficient evidence that warranted termination. State ex rel. Department of Human Servs., Social Servs. Div. v. Ousley, 1985-NMCA-035, 102 N.M. 656, 699 P.2d 129, 1985 N.M. App. LEXIS 556 (N.M. Ct. App. 1985).
Research References and Practice Aids
Cross references.
Disposition of adjudicated abused or neglected child, 32A-4-22 NMSA 1978.
New Mexico Law Review.
Incorporating The Law Of Criminal Procedure In Termination Of Parental Rights Cases: Giving Children A Voice Through Mathews v. Eldridge, Judge Michael D. Bustamante, 32 N.M. L. Rev. 143 (2002).