added). CYFD also failed to present any evidence suggesting that Father was directed by CYFD to submit urinalyses that screened for alcohol but was noncompliant or unwilling to do so. Steckbauer’s final conversation with Father occurred in early December 2013, and Father testified that Steckbauer did not discuss the subject of drug tests with him at all. {37} In the absence of evidence showing any efforts on the part of CYFD to obtain additional urinalyses, we do not believe that Father’s submission of one inconclusive drug screen constituted evidence that he had failed to alleviate the causes and conditions of neglect or was unlikely to do so in the foreseeable future. Cf. State ex rel. Children, Youth & Families Dep’t v. Amanda H., 2007-NMCA-029, ¶ 22, 141 N.M. 299, 154 P.3d 674 (<HOLDING>). The district court incorrectly applied the
holding that the trial court had erred in imposing an obligation to pay child support when clear and convincing evidence established that the husband was not the father of the child holding that in reviewing a defendants motion for judgment of acquittal based on insanity which the defendant must prove by clear and convincing evidence the court must determine whether no reasonable jury could have failed to find that the defendants criminal insanity at the time of the offense was established by clear and convincing evidence holding that fraud on the court must be supported by clear unequivocal and convincing evidence holding that despite the lack of a statutory requirement that severe child abuse be shown by clear and convincing evidence due to the consequences of such a finding the clear and convincing standard must be applied holding that an initial positive toxicology test was inconclusive and therefore did not constitute clear and convincing evidence that established the childs neglect