The Children's Code shall be interpreted and construed to effectuate the following legislative purposes:

A. first to provide for the care, protection and wholesome mental and physical development of children coming within the provisions of the Children's Code and then to preserve the unity of the family whenever possible. A child's health and safety shall be the paramount concern. Permanent separation of a child from the child's family, however, would especially be considered when the child or another child of the parent has suffered permanent or severe injury or repeated abuse. It is the intent of the legislature that, to the maximum extent possible, children in New Mexico shall be reared as members of a family unit;

B. to provide judicial and other procedures through which the provisions of the Children's Code are executed and enforced and in which the parties are assured a fair hearing and their constitutional and other legal rights are recognized and enforced;

C. to provide a continuum of services for children and their families, from prevention to treatment, considering whenever possible prevention, diversion and early intervention, particularly in the schools;

D. to provide children with services that are sensitive to their cultural needs;

E. to reduce overrepresentation of minority children and families in the juvenile justice, family services and abuse and neglect systems through early intervention, linkages to community support services and the elimination of discrimination;

F. to provide for the cooperation and coordination of the civil and criminal systems for investigation, intervention and disposition of cases, to minimize interagency conflicts and to enhance the coordinated response of all agencies to achieve the best interests of a child victim; and

G. to provide continuity for children and families appearing before the children's court by assuring that, whenever possible, a single judge hears all successive cases or proceedings involving a child or family.

History: 1978 Comp., § 32A-1-3, enacted by Laws 1993, ch. 77, § 12; 1999, ch. 77, § 1; 2009, ch. 239, § 6.

The 1999 amendment, effective July 1, 1999, in Subsection A added the second sentence and in the next-to-last sentence inserted "or another child of the parent has".

The 2009 amendment, effective July 1, 2009, added Subsection E.

Applicability. — Laws 2009, ch. 239, § 71, provided that the provisions of this act apply 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.

Decisions under prior law. — In light of the similarity of the provisions, annotations decided under former Section 32-1-2 NMSA 1978 have been included in the annotations to this section.

Double jeopardy. — The New Mexico constitution and double jeopardy statute, Section 30-1-10 NMSA 1978, do not prohibit the state from prosecuting defendants for child abuse because CYFD previously investigated defendants for child abuse and the tribal court previously held a custody hearing on the same issues. In the previous proceedings, the civil sanctions imposed on the defendant were remedial rather than punitive. State v. Diggs, 2009-NMCA-099, 147 N.M. 122, 217 P.3d 608, cert. denied, 2009-NMCERT-007, 147 N.M. 362, 223 P.3d 359.

Intent of code. — The Children's Code is intended to protect children from the consequences of their own acts so long as it is "consistent with the protection of the public interest," and it establishes a system of treatment, care and rehabilitation for children who have committed either "delinquent acts" or who are neglected or in need of supervision. State v. Favela, 1978-NMSC-010, 91 N.M. 476, 576 P.2d 282, overruled on other grounds by State v. Pitts, 1986-NMSC-011, 103 N.M. 778, 714 P.2d 582.

The Children's Code has as its central focus children who are alleged to be delinquent, in need of supervision, abused, or neglected. In re Guardianship of Lupe C., 1991-NMCA-050, 112 N.M. 116, 812 P.2d 365.

With respect to neglected children, the legislative purposes contained in the Children's Code emphasize a legislative objective of keeping the family together whenever possible, separating the child from his parents and family only when necessary for his welfare, and providing services to assist the child and the family. In re Guardianship of Lupe C., 1991-NMCA-050, 112 N.M. 116, 812 P.2d 365.

Best interests of children is paramount consideration. — Parents do not have an absolute right to their children, for any right is secondary to the best interests and welfare of the children. In re Samantha D., 1987-NMCA-082, 106 N.M. 184, 740 P.2d 1168, cert. denied, 106 N.M. 174, 740 P.2d 1158.

Proceedings to further stated purposes and policies. — The court is expected to conduct children's court proceedings in a manner that will further the purposes and policies stated in this section. State v. Doe, 1981-NMCA-140, 97 N.M. 263, 639 P.2d 72, cert. denied, 98 N.M. 50, 644 P.2d 1039, and cert. denied, 457 U.S. 1136, 102 S. Ct. 2965, 73 L. Ed. 2d 1354 (1982).

Children's Code must be read in entirety and each section interpreted so as to correlate as faultlessly as possible with all other sections, in order that the ends sought to be accomplished by the legislature shall not be thwarted. State v. Doe, 1980-NMCA-147, 95 N.M. 88, 619 P.2d 192.

Parents' right to custody not absolute. — Parents have a natural and legal right to custody of their children. This right is prima facie and not an absolute right. This right, however, must yield when the best interests and welfare of the child are at issue. Roberts v. Staples, 1968-NMSC-109, 79 N.M. 298, 442 P.2d 788.

Placement with one other than minor's parent. — The court did not violate the spirit and intent of the Children's Code by placing a 16-year-old girl in the custody of a woman who had helped to rear her and had been found to be a positive influence over her where the child felt compelled to run away from her mother's household and would in all likelihood continue to refuse to live with her mother since the children's court is vested with a broad discretion in hearing and deciding matters under it. In re Doe, 1975-NMCA-131, 88 N.M. 505, 542 P.2d 1195.

Committal to youth authority in best interests of child. — Since the evidence revealed that a child committing involuntary manslaughter had engaged in other violent behavior, the children's court could have reasonably determined that transferring the custody of the child to the youth authority was consistent with the child's best interests, the interests of the child's family, and the interests of the public. State v. Cody R., 1991-NMCA-127, 113 N.M. 140, 823 P.2d 940, cert. denied, 113 N.M. 23, 821 P.2d 1060.

Subject of act adequately expressed in title. — Since the "subject" of the act is children and that subject is clearly expressed, a provision within the act authorizing a change in the custody of a neglected child is a detail provided for accomplishing the legislative purpose of protecting children and such detail need not be set forth in the title of the bill to comply with the requirement of N.M. Const., art. IV, § 16, that the subject of every bill be clearly expressed in its title. State ex rel. Health & Soc. Servs. Dep't v. Natural Father, 1979-NMCA-090, 93 N.M. 222, 598 P.2d 1182.

Right to be treated as child is a statutory, not a constitutional, right. State v. Doe, 1978-NMCA-025, 91 N.M. 506, 576 P.2d 1137.

Same constitutional standards apply to juveniles as to adults. State v. Henry, 1967-NMSC-265, 78 N.M. 573, 434 P.2d 692.

Law reviews. — For comment on Neller v. State, 79 N.M. 528, 445 P.2d 949 (1968), see 9 Nat. Resources J. 310 (1969).

For survey, "Children's Court Practice in Delinquency and Need of Supervision Cases Under the New Rules," see 6 N.M.L. Rev. 331 (1976).

For article, "The New Mexico Children's Code: Some Remaining Problems," see 10 N.M.L. Rev. 341 (1980).

For note, "Children's Code - Neglect - State ex rel. Health & Social Services Department v. Natural Father," see 12 N.M.L. Rev. 505 (1982).