them.” Amy B., 2003-NMCA-017, ¶ 7 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). As recognized in Amy B., the aggravated circumstances provisions tend to serve the best interest of the child because “[e]xperience has shown that with certain parents, as is the case here, the risk of recidivism is a very real concern. Therefore, when another child of that same person is adjudged a dependent child, it is not unreasonable to assume [that] reunification efforts will be unsuccessful.” Id. ¶ 16 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). Finally, Mother argues that the termination of parental rights is not “absolutely final” when it is the subject of a pending appeal. Cf. State ex rel. Children, Youth & Families Dep’t v. Brandy S., 2007-NMCA-135, ¶ 15, 142 N.M. 705, 168 P.3d 1129 (<HOLDING>). She bases this argument on a perceived
recognizing this substantial interest in context of termination of parental rights holding that a district court judgment is not a final judgment appealable by the defendant unless it includes the final adjudication and the final sentence holding parental rights are constitutionally protected fundamental interest recognizingthatajudgmentterminating parental rights constitutes a final judgment recognizing that a final judgment may provide for a particular standard upon which to modify a final judgment