evidence against a defendant in a criminal trial under the constitutional doctrine of waiver by misconduct. Under this doctrine, a defendant’s constitutional right to confrontation under the Sixth Amendment, and therefore his hearsay objection as well, is forfeited by his own wrongdoing. Reynolds, 98 U.S. at 158. {79} I do not agree that the State has presented “several compelling reasons why a showing of intent to silence should not be required” (Majority Opinion, ¶ 30), in “cases of the murder of the witness or the death of the witness arising out of a domestic violence situation.” Majority Opinion ¶ 33. My disagreement is prim ow of these contradictions, and our own cases recognize the problem. See Lujan ex rel. Lujan v. Casados-Lujan, 2004-NMCA-036, ¶ 10,135 N.M. 285, 87 P.3d 1067 (<HOLDING>); State v. Buck, 33 N.M. 334, 338, 266 P. 917,
recognizing parents fundamental liberty interest in the care custody and management of their children recognizing that the motivation for a domestic abuse case can be to further the parents interest holding the foster parents responsible for support where the childs natural parents are unknown and noting that an earlier new york case held that an agreement to adopt did not terminate the natural parents duty of support but that in that earlier case the natural parent was alive and capable of providing for the child recognizing that a parents liberty interest in the custody of a child is subject to due process protection recognizing that in parental termination proceedings the fundamental liberty interest of parents must be balanced with societys interest in protecting the welfare of children