## Facts

- Lili L. was a 15-year-old mother of two minor children and a noncitizen.
- New Mexico’s Children, Youth and Families Department filed a children’s court petition alleging physical abuse and neglect of Lili’s children.
- For the adjudicatory hearing, the children’s court appointed an attorney to represent Lili, but did not appoint a guardian ad litem.
- Lili appeared in person at the adjudicatory hearing, while her attorney participated by telephone.
- In court, it was represented that Lili would enter a consent decree, admit neglect, and agree to a stipulated judgment and disposition that included a reunification plan.
- The children’s court accepted and approved the stipulated judgment and disposition.
- The court did not question Lili in open court to confirm that she understood the allegations, the rights she was giving up by admitting them, or that any admission was voluntary and informed.
- After about one year of services and efforts under the plan, the department filed a petition to terminate Lili’s parental rights.
- At the termination hearing, the department relied on the earlier stipulated judgment and disposition (including the reported neglect admission) to establish that the children were neglected.
- The children’s court adopted the department’s proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law and terminated Lili’s parental rights.
- Lili appealed, challenging the absence of a guardian ad litem and the validity and later use of the earlier neglect admission.

## Issues

1. Must a children’s court appoint a guardian ad litem for a minor parent in an abuse/neglect case when the parent is represented by appointed counsel?
2. Is a neglect admission reflected in a stipulated judgment and disposition valid when the court accepts it without directly questioning the parent in open court about understanding and voluntariness?
3. If the earlier admission was invalid, may the children’s court rely on it to terminate parental rights?

## Decision

- The Court of Appeals rejected Lili’s argument that a guardian ad litem was required, because she was represented by legal counsel.
- The court agreed that the earlier neglect admission was not validly accepted because the children’s court did not personally question Lili in open court to confirm that any admission was knowing and voluntary.
- Because the termination decision relied on the earlier, improperly accepted admission to establish neglect, the termination order could not stand.
- The Court of Appeals reversed the termination order and remanded for further proceedings.

## Legal Principles

- When a minor parent is represented by appointed counsel in a children’s court abuse/neglect proceeding, the court is not required to appoint a guardian ad litem solely due to the parent’s age.
- Before accepting a parent’s admission to allegations of neglect in a proceeding that can later support termination, the children’s court must make an on-record inquiry of the parent to confirm the admission is knowing and voluntary.
- A court may not treat counsel’s statements—especially when counsel appears by telephone—as a substitute for the parent’s personal, in-court confirmation of assent and understanding.
- A termination of parental rights that depends on an invalid prior neglect admission lacks a proper basis and must be set aside.

## Conclusion

In *New Mexico v. Lili L.*, the Court of Appeals held that appointing counsel satisfied any requirement for representation of a minor parent, but it reversed the termination of parental rights because the children’s court accepted a neglect admission through counsel’s representations without directly questioning the parent on the record, and the termination ruling relied on that defective admission.


New Mexico v. Lili L., 911 P.2d 884 (1995)