IN RE: GUARDIANSHIP OF Z. B.

Statutes cited

Key holdings

Practitioner summary

Standard of review: Guardianship determinations are reviewed for abuse of discretion. In re Guardianship of L.S. & H.S., 120 Nev. 157, 163, 87 P.3d 521, 525 (2004) ("Absent a showing of abuse, we will not disturb the district court's exercise of discretion concerning guardianship determinations."). Factual findings are reviewed for substantial evidence. Ellis v. Carucci, 123 Nev. 145, 149, 161 P.3d 239, 242 (2007). Doctrinal framework: Under NRS 159A.055(1), the petitioner bears the burden of proving by clear and convincing evidence that appointment of a guardian is necessary. NRS 159A.054(1) directs dismissal if the proposed protected minor is not in need of a guardian. NRS 159A.061(1) prefers a parent over all others if qualified and suitable, and NRS 159A.061(4)(a)-(b) sets out factors supporting a presumption of unsuitability, including whether the parent can provide for basic needs and whether the parent poses a significant safety risk. NRS 159A.061(4)(c) provides a rebuttable presumption of unsuitability when the minor "has not been in the care, custody and control of the parent for the 6 months immediately preceding the filing of the petition." NRS 159A.061(6)(b) requires consideration of the preference of a proposed protected minor 14 or older. NRS 159A.061(9) requires the court to act in the minor's best interests. Application: The court held the district court correctly found that Simms failed to carry her burden. The record showed Alexis was willing and able to provide for Z.B.'s basic needs and did not pose a physical or emotional safety risk. The court declined to reweigh the district court's credibility determination rejecting Z.B.'s allegations of physical abuse. Ellis, 123 Nev. at 152, 161 P.3d at 244. The NRS 159A.061(4)(c) six-month presumption did not apply because Simms filed the petition just shy of six months after Z.B. left Alexis's home—a point both Z.B. and Simms conceded below—and the record also showed Alexis made consistent efforts to return Z.B. to her care, defeating any abandonment finding. The district court acknowledged Z.B.'s preference under NRS 159A.061(6)(b) in its written order, but a minor's preference cannot overcome the threshold determination that a guardianship is not necessary. Holding: Substantial evidence supported the district court's finding that appointing a guardian would be contrary to Z.B.'s best interests under NRS 159A.061(9). Because the court affirmed on the necessity ground, it did not reach Z.B.'s challenges to the district court's findings regarding Simms' suitability or the legal standards applied to that suitability analysis.

In plain language

This case concerns a teenager, Z.B., who was adopted by Alexis B. in 2013 after the parental rights of her biological mother, Michelle Simms, were terminated. In September 2022, Z.B. left Alexis's home and began living with biological family members, including Simms. Over the next five months, Alexis reported Z.B. as a runaway and asked law enforcement and child welfare agencies to conduct welfare checks at Simms' home, which they did. In March 2023, Simms petitioned the district court to be appointed as Z.B.'s guardian. Alexis opposed that petition and filed her own competing petition seeking guardianship. After an evidentiary hearing, the district court denied both petitions, finding that no guardianship was needed because Z.B. already had a parent (Alexis) willing and able to care for her. Z.B. appealed. The Nevada Supreme Court affirmed. The court explained that under Nevada law, a parent is preferred over others as guardian if qualified and suitable, and the person seeking guardianship must prove by clear and convincing evidence that a guardianship is necessary. The district court found Alexis could meet Z.B.'s basic needs and did not pose a safety risk. The district court also found that Z.B.'s claims of physical abuse by Alexis were not credible, and the Supreme Court explained it would not second-guess the district court's credibility determinations on appeal. The court rejected Z.B.'s argument that Alexis had abandoned her. A statutory presumption that a parent is unsuitable applies when the child has been out of the parent's care for the six months immediately before the petition is filed, but here Simms filed the petition just short of six months after Z.B. left Alexis's home, so the presumption did not apply. The record also showed Alexis made consistent efforts to bring Z.B. home. The court also addressed Z.B.'s argument that the district court ignored her preference (Z.B. wanted Simms to be her guardian). The court noted the district court had acknowledged Z.B.'s wishes in its written order, and in any event Z.B.'s preference could not override the conclusion that a guardianship was not necessary.