New Mexico v. Lili L.

Lili L. (defendant) was a 15-year-old mother of two minor children. Lili was also a noncitizen. New Mexico’s Children Youth and Families Department (the department) filed a petition against Lili, alleging physical abuse and neglect of her children. The children’s court appointed an attorney to represent Lili at the adjudicative hearing; however, the court did not also appoint a guardian ad litem. Lili was present at the adjudicative hearing, but her attorney participated by telephone. The children’s court attorney reported that Lili’s attorney had approved a stipulated judgment and disposition and asked the court to sign it. Lili’s attorney also told the court by phone that Lili concurred in entering a consent decree, would admit that she neglected her children, and agreed to the stipulated judgment being entered. The children’s court did not ask Lili any questions in open court regarding whether she understood or agreed with what her attorney told the court before accepting her admission. The stipulated judgment and disposition were approved by the children’s court, under which Lili apparently admitted the allegations and agreed to a reunification plan. However, after one year of working with Lili, the department filed a petition to terminate Lili’s parental rights. At the termination-of-parental-rights hearing, the department used the prior stipulated judgment and disposition to show that Lili’s children were neglected. The children’s court adopted the department’s factual findings and legal conclusions and terminated Lili’s parental rights. Lili appealed, arguing first that the children’s court erred in not appointing a guardian ad litem to represent her. This argument was without merit because a court was not required to appoint a guardian ad litem to represent a minor if the minor was represented by legal counsel, as Lili was. Lili also argued that her prior admission was void because the children’s court did not question her in court regarding whether she understood the proceedings and agreed with her attorney regarding the stipulated judgment and disposition. In addition, Lili argued that the court’s termination of her parental rights was not valid, because the children’s court based its determination that Lili’s children were neglected on her prior invalid admission.