A counseling practice serving probationary sex offenders has quietly operated since around 2000 at 2700 Farmington Ave., Suite B, directly across from Fundamentals Child Development Center, according to a KOAT report published Oct. 31, 2025. The program, run by Dr. Michael Castenell, is licensed through the New Mexico Counseling and Therapy Practice Board and caters to non-residential clients who remain under GPS monitoring while on probation.

The office’s location and longevity were confirmed through on-site reporting by KOAT, which also cited an anonymous former client who raised safety concerns. Officials at the New Mexico Children, Youth and Families Department and the owner of the daycare told KOAT that no prior complaints had been filed about the program. Local probation officials and the state counseling board have said the program meets existing state standards and that clients are tracked via GPS as part of their supervision.

For many families in Farmington, the revelation that mandatory counseling for individuals on sex-offender probation has taken place less than 100 feet from a childcare facility for a quarter-century is unsettling. Parents who regularly drop off children at Fundamentals said they were unaware of the program’s presence. The proximity raises practical and emotional questions about how communities are informed when high-risk rehabilitation services are placed near schools and daycares, particularly when no public notice or community input is required under current rules.

Beyond immediate concerns about perception and comfort, the situation highlights gaps in oversight and policymaking. The program’s compliance with state licensing and probation conditions means it was legally permitted to operate in its current location, yet the absence of public notification or municipal zoning restrictions has left residents feeling excluded from decisions that affect neighborhood safety and trust. Local advocates and public-health observers say the case underscores the need for clearer policies governing the siting of rehabilitative services for justice-involved individuals near child-centered institutions.

Public-health implications include both real and perceived risks. While GPS monitoring reduces certain immediate risks, community safety is also shaped by transparency, trust-building measures and accessible reporting channels. The incident points to the importance of coordinated communication among probation officials, licensing boards, childcare providers and families to mitigate anxiety and ensure clear avenues for raising concerns or reporting incidents.

Next steps identified by community leaders and watchdogs include requests for public records that would clarify client volume, any incident reports generated over the life of the program, and the decision-making process that allowed the office’s location to remain unchallenged. Municipal leaders in Farmington may also explore whether zoning or local ordinances could create buffer zones around schools and daycares or require notification when certain rehabilitation programs establish offices nearby.

This episode has prompted a fresh conversation in San Juan County about balancing rehabilitation and public safety, and about the responsibility of institutions to inform and involve communities. As families and officials reckon with the discovery, the broader questions center on how policy and practice can better protect children, support rehabilitative services, and restore public trust without undermining the legal and therapeutic frameworks now in place.