have a common principle to apply, they recognize a definitive ending or finality to an event or proceeding. As such, an unresolved proceeding, one that is not final and has not reached a definitive end, does not meet the accepted general definition of “terminate” or its past-tense equivalent “terminated.” In this case, the generally accepted definition of “terminated” would appear to support Mother’s position — where a termination proceeding remains unresolved on appeal and has not yet ended formally or definitely, parental rights to a sibling have not been terminated under Section 32A-4-2(C)(4). However, our Supreme Court has recognized that the application of the plain meaning rule does not end an analysis. See State v. Rivera, 2004-NMSC-001, ¶ 13, 134 N.M. 768, 82 P.3d 939 (<HOLDING>). We should be looking at the overall
holding that a statute cannot be construed in a manner that would lead to an absurd or unreasonable result holding that a literal interpretation should not be adhered to when it would lead to absurd results recognizing that a clause in an insurance policy was susceptible to a construction in favor of the insured but that such a construction would be unreasonable absurd and produce results never intended or contemplated by the parties recognizing that the appellate courts will not rely upon the literal meaning of a statute when such a construction would be absurd unreasonable or otherwise inappropriate recognizing a court must look beyond the plain language of a statute when the literal interpretation would lead to an absurd result