home studies on willing and appropriate relatives with whom to place the child). The Department’s evaluation and the court hearing are to be expedited and meaningful. If Child’s best interests would be served by being placed with Colin, the court should, accordingly, oversee a transition plan. Cf. Lance K., 2009-NMCA-054, ¶¶ 2, 44 (ordering the court and the Department to oversee a transition plan to return a child to the father after an erroneous termination of his parental rights). On a final note, we emphasize that Section 32A-4-25.1(D) imposes a duty upon the district court to make a serious inquiry into whether the Department has complied with its mandate to locate, identify, and consider relatives with whom to place children in its custody. See Benjamin O., 2007-NMCA-070, ¶ 34 (<HOLDING>). In future cases, such inquiry will not be
recognizing that source code is speech but not reaching the object code issue recognizing that code is speech recognizing that the zoning code of a homerule city is a legislative enactment holding that the disciplinary rules of the code of professional responsibility are not laws of the state of texas for purposes of statute which excludes the admission of evidence obtained in violation of law recognizing that the preservation of family unity is one of the legislative purposes of the childrens code