IN RE: PARENTAL RIGHTS AS TO K.M.W.

Statutes cited

Key holdings

Practitioner summary

The court reviewed the district court's termination order under the established two-part standard: clear and convincing evidence of (1) at least one ground of parental fault and (2) that termination serves the child's best interest. NRS 128.105(1); In re Termination of Parental Rights as to N.J., 116 Nev. 790, 800-01, 8 P.3d 126, 132-33 (2000). Questions of law are reviewed de novo and factual findings for substantial evidence. In re Parental Rights as to A.L., 130 Nev. 914, 918, 337 P.3d 758, 761 (2014). Substantial evidence is that which "a reasonable person may accept as adequate" to support a conclusion. Ellis v. Carucci, 123 Nev. 145, 149, 161 P.3d 239, 242 (2007). The district court found parental fault on multiple grounds — neglect, unfitness, and failure of parental adjustment under NRS 128.105(1)(b)(2)-(1)(b)(4) — and token efforts under NRS 128.105(1)(b)(6), invoking the presumption in NRS 128.109(1)(a) (child placed outside the home for 14 of 20 consecutive months). Because only one parental-fault ground is required under NRS 128.105(1)(b), the court limited its review to neglect and unfitness. Applying NRS 128.106(1)(a), which addresses emotional illness, mental illness, or mental deficiency rendering a parent consistently unable to care for the child, the court held substantial evidence supported the findings. The record showed: K.M.W.'s initial removal followed a car accident caused by Jayleen falling asleep at the wheel; erratic conduct toward the placement; an in-person visit in which Jayleen grabbed K.M.W. in a manner that frightened him, after which he refused in-person contact; Jayleen's declining the letter-exchange alternative; inconsistent work on the DFS case plan; and a failure to prove attendance at recommended therapy addressing the mental-health issues underlying removal. On best interest, the court relied on NRS 128.105(1), NRS 128.107, and NRS 128.108. Testimony from K.M.W.'s therapist, DFS employees, and the placement established the child's bond with the placement, improvement in food insecurity and anxiety, and his expressed desire to remain there. The court further invoked the NRS 128.109(2) presumption (child out of parental care for 14 of any 20 consecutive months) — applicable here because K.M.W. had been out of Jayleen's care for 24 consecutive months — and found Jayleen had not rebutted it. The court rejected Jayleen's "constructive termination" argument premised on K.M.W.'s refusal of in-person visitation, observing that an alternative means of contact (letters) had been offered and declined, and that other evidence independently supported the best-interest finding.

In plain language

This case involves a mother, Jayleen B., whose parental rights to her child, K.M.W., were ended by a Clark County district court. The case began after K.M.W. was hurt in a car accident that happened when Jayleen fell asleep at the wheel. After that, the child was removed from her care. Jayleen agreed (by pleading "no contest") that there had been abuse and neglect, and the state's Department of Family Services later asked the court to terminate her parental rights altogether. The district court agreed to do so, and Jayleen appealed to the Nevada Supreme Court. To end a parent's rights in Nevada, a court must find two things by clear and convincing evidence: that there is at least one ground of "parental fault," and that ending the relationship is in the child's best interest. The district court found several grounds of parental fault here, including neglect, unfitness, failure of parental adjustment, and "token efforts" because the child had been out of Jayleen's home for 24 straight months. On appeal, Jayleen argued the state had not proven neglect or unfitness with clear and convincing evidence, contending that the only real basis was her mental health and that she had managed her mental health well enough to meet her child's basic needs. The Nevada Supreme Court disagreed. It pointed to evidence in the record that Jayleen acted erratically toward the people caring for K.M.W., that she once grabbed the child during a visit in a way that frightened him, that she declined to exchange letters with him after he became unwilling to see her in person, and that she did not consistently work on her case plan or prove she attended the therapy that had been recommended to her. The court also concluded that ending Jayleen's parental rights was in K.M.W.'s best interest. Testimony showed K.M.W. had bonded with the family caring for him, that his food insecurity and anxiety had improved, and that he wanted to stay there. Because the child had been out of Jayleen's care for 24 consecutive months, Nevada law presumed that termination was in his best interest, and the court found Jayleen had not overcome that presumption. The court also rejected Jayleen's argument that K.M.W.'s refusal to see her in person amounted to a "constructive termination" of her rights, noting she had been offered another way to communicate (letters) but declined. The Nevada Supreme Court affirmed the district court's order ending Jayleen's parental rights.