Father’s relatives in the United States as possible placement options. Considering the totality of the circumstances, we do not agree with CYFD that these efforts met the minimum statutory requirements under the ANA. See Patricia H., 2002-NMCA-061, ¶ 28 (“[An appellate court’s] job is not to determine whether CYFD did everything possible; our task is limited by our statutory scope of review to whether CYFD complied with the minimum required under law.”). Father made efforts to comply with the services offered in Mexico as part of his treatment plan once he was free from the restrictions of his incarceration. In light of Father’s efforts, we cannot attribute the resulting lack of evidence related to the causes and conditions ofneglectto Father. Cf. Hector C., 2008-NMCA-079, ¶ 20 (<HOLDING>). Additionally, Child had been in CYFD’s
holding that plaintiff had cared for his father who suffered severe depression after murder of his daughter within meaning of fmla interim regulation because inter alia he discussed with his father grief associated with murder and provided reassuring physical presence to his father holding the trial court made sufficient findings where it found in summary that father was physically able to make the required payments by virtue of his ability to work and earn income that he had the present financial ability to work and earn income that he had the present financial ability to satisfy his arrearage or to obtain the means by which said arrearage could be satisfied and that father failed to present adequate facts to excuse his noncompliance and inability to comply 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 cyfd failed to present clear and convincing evidence that the causes and conditions of neglect were unlikely to change in the foreseeable future when the father complied with his treatment plan and cyfd failed to reevaluate the father following his release from prison holding that a child was not barred by a former statute of limitations applicable to actions to establish the existence of a father and child relationship when the current action was to establish the nonexistence of a father and child relationship and the presumed father no longer persisted in maintaining paternity