petition if this Court eventually affirmed the grant of visitation rights to Vest, I find the quoted passage to be possible support for granting Vest visitation rights, rather than for denying them. 2 . My preference would be to remand to the children’s court for further findings on the issue of visitation. See State ex rel. Human Servs. Dep't v. Coleman, 104 N.M. 500, 505, 723 P.2d 971, 976 (Ct.App.1986). As already noted, the children’s court's inquiry into this issue was too limited in scope. Additionally, there has been a significant lapse of time since the children’s court’s determination. This appellate delay may have had a crucial effect on the issues before the children’s court. See generally State ex rel. Juvenile Dep’t v. Geist, 310 Or. 176, 796 P.2d 1193, 1200-01 (1990) (<HOLDING>). Because the paramount concern here is the
recognizing that the department is required to present clear and convincing evidence to support termination of a parents parental rights holding parental rights are constitutionally protected fundamental interest recognizing this substantial interest in context of termination of parental rights recognizing that protracted litigation regarding parental rights is detrimental to children holding that evidence did not support termination of parental rights to two children despite mothers prior conviction for killing her stepchild