New Mexico Supreme Court tosses challenge to removal policy for drug-exposed newborns

The New Mexico Supreme Court on Monday sided with Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham and unanimously denied a petition filed last month requesting reversal of a policy mandating the removal of newborns exposed to drugs and alcohol.

The case stems from a July 2025 directive the New Mexico Children, Youth and Families Department issued requiring staff to take immediate custody of newborns with diagnoses of fetal alcohol syndrome or substance-exposure with “no exceptions.”

In 2019, the New Mexico Legislature updated its mandatory reporting laws to include language that a pregnant women using or abusing drugs “shall not alone form a sufficient basis to report child abuse or neglect.”

In court documents, Lujan Grisham and CYFD Secretary Valerie Sandoval said the change in the order was necessary to protect infants’ lives, after “several tragic cases in which newborns who were born substance-exposed died or were seriously injured after being discharged to parental care.”

Last month, the American Civil Liberties Union of New Mexico and two state lawmakers argued the order overstepped state law and created a blanket policy that would push vulnerable parents away from seeking care. The emergency petition urged the court to halt the policy saying it “invades the fundamental liberty interest of parents to the care and custody of their children.”

In a two-page decision, the five justices denied the request from the ACLU and state Sen. Linda López (D-Albuquerque) and Rep. Micaela Lara Cadena (D-Las Cruces).

In a statement issued in response to the court’s decision, Lujan Grisham said since the policy has been in place, no drug-exposed infants have died in care.

“The drugs devastating our families today demand a different response from state government,” the governor said. “My executive order is part of that response — and it has already saved lives.” The order, she said, “is designed as a temporary structure to protect our most vulnerable children, not as punishment of their parents. We want families together and we want parents well. New Mexico will continue to lean in, as hard and as far as it takes, to connect parents with treatment and give them every tool they need.”

Lara Cadena said in a statement provided to Source NM that the directive “remains immoral and unlawful,” and ignores family, provider and tribal community concerns.

“It’s incredibly disappointing that the New Mexico Supreme Court is not taking up this significant act of executive overreach. While this directive remains in place, families that are struggling and bravely seek healthcare and support will continue being torn apart,” Lara Cadena said. “Little ones deserve a response to their unique circumstances, not blanket policies that pull them away from their families.”

Deanna Warren, policy director at the ACLU-NM, in a statement provided to Source, described the court’s decision as a “painful setback” and said the organization will pursue a balance of child safety and family unity.

“We are deeply disappointed in the decision,” Warren said. “It guarantees continued uncertainty and the tragic, forced separation of more New Mexican families. Every family deserves to be treated as an individual unit, and children deserve the chance to grow up with the people who love them. Decisions about a child’s well-being must be grounded in compassionate medicine, the law, and the child’s actual circumstances, rather than in harmful, blanket policies that strip away fundamental rights.”

State welfare officials told Source NM last month that since July 2025, 213 infants were reported to state welfare services. Of those children, district court judges awarded custody to CYFD 127 times, denying five cases.