Higgins Law handles cases involving CYFD, and Civil rights cases in New Mexico. Let our experience work for you. The office does not take all of the New Mexico CYFD cases or Civil Rights Cases that come through the office door. First and foremost, we will thoroughly examine your case together in order to determine if we are a good fit. After discussing the details of your case, you should feel confident with our strategy moving forward.
Cases against CYFD also know as New Mexico Children, Youth and Families Department
Our office is probably not for you if your sole issue with CYFD in Albuquerque NM is related to a custody dispute. Higgins Law looks at cases to see if children have been taken out of the home without a meaningful investigation by law enforcement (or CYFD), without parental consent, and/or without a court order.
Remember: Parents have constitutional rights as it pertains to raising their own kids,
“In the area of child abuse, as with the investigation and prosecution of all crimes, state actors are constrained by the substantive and procedural guarantees of the Constitution.” Wallis v. Spencer, 202F.3d 1126, 1130(9th Cir. 2000). Any motive to protect a child from abuse does not override a parent’s constitutional rights. Franzv.Lytle, 997F.2d 784, 793 (10th Cir. 1993)
In the child welfare context,the Constitution protects a parent’s fundamental right to make decisions concerning their child’s care, custody, upbringing, education, management, and control. Troxelv. Granville, 530U.S. 57, 66(2000); Lassiterv. Dep’tof Soc. Services, 452U.S. 18, 38(1981). Thus, familial rights are sheltered against the state’s“unwarranted usurpation, disregard, or disrespect.” M.L.B. v. S.L.J., 519U.S. 102,106(1996).
The Constitution guarantees that parents and children will not be separated without due process of law, except in emergencies. Keatesv. Koile,883F.3d1228, 1236(9thCir. 2018); Demaree v. Pederson, 887 F.3d870, 878(9thCir. 2018); Rogers v. County of San Joaquin, 487 F.3d1288, 1294(9thCir. 2007). In the context of child removals by social services agencies, exigency is narrowly defined. More than“probable cause” is required. Mabe v. San Bernardino County, 237F.3d1101, 1108n.2 (9th Cir.2001). Thus, to establish a constitutional violation, Plaintiff only needs to show an unauthorized seizure under color of law. Demaree, supra, 887F.3dat883(“the government must also show that a warrant could not have been obtained in time”)(emphasis added); Bakerv. Cty. of L.A., 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 190702,*16(C.D. Cal.Sep.27, 2013); see, e.g., Birairv. Kolycheck, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 150671, *26-27 (D.Ariz. Sep. 5,2018). In turn, Defendant bears the burden to negate this violation by proving an exception, i.e., exigent circumstances. SeeWelsh, supra, 466U.S. at750; Birair, supra, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 150671, at*26-27; Baker, supra,2013U.S. Dist.LEXIS 190702, at*16
Remember, in order to take your children away CYFD has to demonstrate that the child was in imminent danger. Click here to contact our office if your case meets the above criteria
For direct questions to CYFD in Albuquerque New Mexico contact them for more information https://cyfd.org